GENERAL  LIBRARY 


Crown  Theological  Library 

This  series  has  been  instituted  to  present 
a  religious  literature  dealing  with  modern 
difficulties ;  the  thinking  man  needs  books 
on  a  subject  so  vital  as  that  of  religious 
thought,  which  take  into  account  all  that  is 
most  valuable  and  trustworthy  in  modern  re- 
search. The  volumes  comprising  the  **  Crown 
Theological  Library"  have  been  selected  with 
a  view  of  meeting  the  religious  questionings 
of  the  present  age,  and  each  contribution  has 
been  prepared  by  an  acknowledged  author- 
ity on  the  subject  with  which  it  deals.  The 
standpoint  of  the  series  is  at  once  reverent 
and  liberal.  Its  object  is  to  combine  respect 
for  religion  with  respect  for  historic  and  scien- 
tific truth,  and  to  present  a  series  of  studies 
on  the  great  problems  of  human  life  which  are 
free  from  all  dogmatic  prepossessions. 

For  full  list  see  end  of  this  volume 


THE   PROGRAMME   OF   MODERNISM 


THE    PROGRAMME    OF 
MODERNISM 

A  REPLY 
TO  THE  ENCYCLICAL  OF  PIUS  X.,  Pascendi  Dominici  Gregis 

WITH  THE  TEXT  OF  THE  ENCYCLICAL  IN  AN  ENGLISH  VERSION 

TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  ITALIAN 
BY 

REV.  FATHER  GEORGE  TYRRELL 


WITH   AN   INTRODUCTION 

BY 

A.  LESLIE  LILLEY 

Vicar  of  St.  Mary's,  Paddington  Green,  London 


That  that  dleth,  let  it  die ;  and  that  that  is  to  be  cut  oflF,  let  it  be 
cut  off." — Zechariah,  xi,  9. 

Enlarge  the  place  of  thy  tent,  and  let  them  stretch  forth  the  curtains 
of  thine  habitations ;  spare  not :  lengthen  thy  cords,  strengthen  thy 
stakes.  For  thou  shalt  spread  abroad  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the 
left ;  and  thy  seed  shall  possess  the  nations,  and  make  the  desolate 
cities  to  be  inhabited." — Isaiah,  liv,  2-3. 


G.   P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

NEW    YORK     AND     LONDON 

Ube  IRntcl^erbocker  press 

1Q08 


S' 


Zbc  mntckerbocker  t>cese,  1\cvo  ISocft 


INTRODUCTION 

THOUGH  written  for  Roman  Catholics  by  Roman 
Catholics,  the  message  of  the  following  pages 
concerns  a  far  wider  world  than  that  of  even  the 
largest  Christian  communion.  Obviously  it  concerns 
every  Christian  body,  without  distinction,  for  they 
are  all  in  some  measure  pressed  by  those  problems 
which  have  now  become  so  acute  in  the  Roman 
Church — problems  whose  roots  are  in  an  age  prior 
to  the  Protestant  Reformation,  prior  to  the  schism 
of  East  and  West,  and  whose  fibres  run  up  through 
all  the  diverging  branches  into  which  Christendom 
has  been  divided.  Nay,  more,  those  very  divisions 
are,  to  a  large  extent,  the  result  of  a  failure  to  ap- 
preciate the  problems  in  question,  and  of  a  super- 
ficial estimate  of  the  radical  principles  at  issue. 
Such  failure  was  perhaps  inevitable  before  the  ac- 
cumulating evidence  of  historical  and  biblical  criti- 
cism had  lit  up  the  darkness  of  the  past  with  a 
brilliancy  previously  unattainable.  In  that  light,  the 
controversies  that  divide  Christians  seem  trivial  be- 
side that  in  which  they  are  forcibly  united  to-day 
for  the  defence  of  their  common  presuppositions. 
It  seems  more  and  more  likely  every  day  that  this 


iv  Introduction 

great  controversy  of  faith  with  unfaith  may  drive 
them  to  seek  refuge  on  a  higher  and  firmer  ground, 
where  doctrinal  and  institutional  differences  will  di- 
minish if  not  vanish  altogether.  If  such  a  ground  is 
to  some  extent  sketched  out  in  this  Programme  of 
Modernism,  it  is  not  because  that  programme  is  less 
deeply  and  distinctively  Catholic  than  that  of  Me- 
disevalism,  but  because  it  is  more  so.  And  similarly, 
in  the  measure  that  other  denominations  "  look  unto 
the  rock  whence  they  were  hewn";  in  the  measure 
that  they  search  back  to  the  root  of  their  doctrinal 
and  institutional  life,  namely,  to  those  experiences 
of  faith — of  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  the  atoning 
power  of  Christ,  the  consolation  of  the  indwelling 
spirit — of  which  outward  religion  is  but  the  instru- 
ment and  expression,  they  will  cease,  not  to  value, 
but  to  over-value  those  differences  of  form  and  form- 
ula which  may  continue  to  separate  them  from  the 
ancient  and  world-wide  Catholic  tradition.  Hereto- 
fore re-union  has  been  sought  through  the  very  prin- 
ciple of  division— through  a  forced  and  artificial 
agreement  on  questions,  not  of  faith,  but  of  theology 
or  observance  viewed  as  of  primary  and  essential 
importance.  And  such  unity,  bearing  the  seed  of 
division  in  its  heart,  has  always  been  short-lived. 
"  Except  the  Lord  build  the  house  their  labour  is 
but  lost  that  build  it."  No  council,  however  univers- 
ally representative,  could  effect  more  than  a  tempor- 


Introduction  v 

ary  and  unstable  compromise.  No  stable  unity  can 
be  effected  but  by  the  slow  self-revelation  of  irresist- 
ible Truth,  whose  forward  march,  like  that  of  a 
glacier,  none  can  withstand.  "  Whosoever  shall  fall 
upon  that  stone  shall  be  broken,  but  on  whomsoever 
it  shall  fall  it  will  grind  him  to  powder."  This  unity, 
which  the  pressure  of  accumulating  evidence  is  forc- 
ing upon  Christians,  is  not  so  much  sought  as  found. 
A  fog  has  lifted,  and  we  who  deemed  ourselves  far 
asunder  find  ourselves  close  together. 

But  the  problems  handled  in  this  Programme  af- 
fect not  only  Christianity,  but  religion  in  general. 
God  wills,  and  wills  effectively,  that  all  men  should 
be  saved  and  should  come  to  a  knowledge  of  such 
truth  as  is  needed  for  their  salvation.  When  men 
knew  but  a  corner  of  the  world,  and  but  a  page  or 
two  of  its  voluminous  history,  it  was  possible  to  be- 
lieve that  God  willed  all  men  to  be  formally  Chris- 
tians, and  not  merely  Christians  in  spirit.  That  is  no 
longer  possible.  A  knowledge  and  comparison  of 
the  countless  religions  of  the  present  and  of  the  past, 
a  recognition  of  the  psychological  incapacity  of  all 
but  a  fraction  of  humanity  to  apprehend  the  theo- 
logical conceptions  of  one  particular  race  and  epoch, 
force  us,  under  pain  of  scepticism  and  pessimism,  to 
acknowledge  in  every  religion  an  effort  of  the  all 
pervading  Word  to  reveal  the  Father  in  forms  and 
symbols  suited  to  the  mental  and  moral  conditions 


vi  Introduction 

of  its  votaries.  It  is  Christ  who  has  taught  us  that 
if  salvation  is  pre-eminently  of  the  Jews  it  is  also  in 
due  measure  of  the  Samaritans  and  the  Gentiles. 
And  the  same  note  has  been  struck  even  more 
clearly  by  S.  Paul,  S.  Justin,  S.  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, S.  Augustine.  To  feel  this  relation  of  fraternity 
between  the  various  members  of  the  religious  family 
is  to  be  a  Catholic;  to  deny  it  is  to  be  a  sectarian. 
Yet  it  can  never  be  felt  so  long  as  we  confound 
those  inward  experiences,  which  are  the  substance  of 
faith,  with  their  outward  doctrinal  and  institutional 
expressions,  and  try  to  see  in  these  latter  the  em- 
bryonic forms  of  Christian  dogma  and  observance. 
"It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth 
nothing."  It  is  in  the  inward  experiences,  not  in 
their  outward  manifestations,  that  the  parentage  of 
religions  is  to  be  sought.  Here,  undoubtedly,  the 
Programme  penetrates  the  deeper  and  better  mind  of 
Christian  Catholicism  in  a  way  that  was  hardly  pos- 
sible for  scholastic  theology  with  its  narrow  aprioris- 
tic  outlook  upon  history.  If  no  man  can  come  to 
the  Father  but  through  Christ,  if  there  is  no  other 
Name  given  under  Heaven  through  which  men  may 
be  saved,  yet  Christ  is  an  ineffable  Spirit  who,  under 
a  thousand  ever  unworthy  names,  strives  ceaselessly 
with  every  human  soul  and  conscience,  however 
ignorant  of  His  historical  manifestation  as  Jesus  of 
Nazareth. 


Introduction  vii 

If,  then,  Modernism  opens  a  possible  way  to  a 
more  or  less  explicit  unity  of  spirit,  and  even  uni- 
formity of  expression,  among  the  severed  branches 
of  Christendom,  it  acknowledges  among  all  the  re- 
ligions of  the  world  a  certain  unity  in  variety  as 
of  many  mansions  in  the  House  of  the  Universal 
Father.  He  who  is  scandalised  at  this  would  have 
been  scandalised  at  Christ. 

But  though  this  movement  in  the  Roman  Church 
towards  a  higher  and  truer  expression  of  Catholicism 
interests  religion  directly,  it  is  also  inspired  by  a 
wider  and  deeper  interest  to  which  that  of  the  vari- 
ous religious  institutions  is  subservient ;  and  its 
bearings  on  public  life  and  civilisation,  if  more  re- 
mote, are  not  less  important  and  not  less  real.  It  is 
now  many  years  since  one  of  our  leading  sociologists 
pointed  out  the  disaster  threatening  a  civilisation 
entrusted  solely  to  the  competing  forces  of  man's 
self-regarding  instincts,  unchecked  and  unqualified 
by  those  altruistic  self-sacrificing  ideals  for  which  a 
practical  and  theoretical  materialism  finds  no  room 
or  justification.  It  is  manifest  that  selfishness  is  not 
less,  but  even  more,  effectual  than  selflessness  in  set- 
ting man's  wits  to  work  in  its  service,  and  that  it  can 
build  up  a  civilisation  that  tends  to  become  a  verit- 
able Kingdom  of  Self  or  Kingdom  of  Satan.  But 
such  a  civilisation  is  essentially  parasitic ;  and,  if 
wholly  victorious  over  its  host,  must  prey  upon  itself 


viii  Introduction 

and  come  to  nought.  It  is  idle  to  invoke  religion, 
with  its  sanction  of  altruism,  as  a  mere  social  expe- 
dient, if  religion  be  not  true,  or  be  no  more  than  a 
useful  illusion.  Grown  men  cannot  be  kept  in  order 
by  the  bogies  of  their  infancy.  Tell  them  that  their 
altruistic  and  humanitarian  instincts,  feebler,  though 
not  less  real,  than  their  egoism,  are  but  tricks  of 
crafty  Nature  for  her  own  ends,  and  they  will  fight 
Nature  as  they  fight  one  another — but  to  their 
destruction. 

The  new  attempts  to  civilise  and  govern  on  a 
secularist  basis  do  not  promise  well.  To  all  appear- 
ance we  are  being  hurried  to  anarchy  and  disruption. 
Each  man's  faith  is  in  the  faith  of  the  rest ;  none 
dare  say,  in  his  own  strength,  "  I  see,  I  believe,  I 
hope."  Heretofore  nations  have  risen  and  triumphed 
through  common  intuitions,  beliefs,  and  aims  that 
were  at  root  religious — the  products  of  some  sort  of 
faith.  As  this  seems  no  longer  possible,  it  is  pro- 
posed to  unite  them  by  the  free  play  and  eventual 
equilibrium  of  those  disruptive  instincts  which  faith 
had  formerly  held  in  check,  or  utilised  only  as  servile 
forces  in  the  interests  of  the  common  good.  Now 
"  servants  rule  over  us,  and  there  is  none  that  doth 
deliver  us  out  of  their  hand."  Cavour's  policy  of  "a 
free  Church  in  a  free  State  "  was  in  reality  a  policy 
of  despair — an  abdication  of  right  on  the  part  of  the 
State  in  answer  to  the  Church's  violation  of  right. 


Introduction  ix 

In  so  far  as  they  have  adopted  this  policy,  modern 
governments  have  discrowned  themselves  and  let  the 
sceptre  pass  from  their  hands.  He  was  a  wise  man 
who  said:  ''Let  me  make  the  nation's  songs,  and 
let  who  will  make  its  laws."  Still  more  important 
than  laws  or  songs  is  the  inspiring  power  of  religion, 
the  deepest  and  strongest  educational  force. 

What  has  necessitated  this  secularisation  of  gov- 
ernments, and  the  consequent  materialistic  view  of 
authority,  is  to  a  great  extent  the  disruption  of 
Christendom  into  a  number  of  conflicting  sects,  each 
attaching  a  divine  authority  to  its  own  dogmatic  and 
institutional  peculiarities,  each  regarding  the  defence 
of  such  peculiarities  as  the  highest  of  all  duties  and 
resenting  State  interference  as  sacrilege.  So  long  as 
one  form  of  Christianity  was  practically  predominant 
and  without  any  serious  competitor  a  State  religion 
was  no  public  injustice.  But  when  this  ceased  to  be 
the  case  the  simplest  expedient  was  for  the  State  to 
assume  an  attitude  of  indifference  and  to  allow  the 
sects  to  settle  their  own  disputes.  A  graver  cause, 
especially  in  Latin  countries,  has  been  the  habitual 
identification  of  religion  with  so  much  that  is  repug- 
nant to  modern  ideas — political,  social,  moral,  philo- 
sophical, scientific,  historical ;  with  so  much  that  is 
simply  obstructive  of  the  democratic  and  scientific 
movements  which  are  the  main  characteristics  of  our 
age.     So  fatally  has  the  Roman  Church  entangled 


X  Introduction 

the  cause  of  Christ  with  its  mediaeval  expression, 
with  forms,  once  life-giving  but  now  obsolete  and 
socially  pestilential,  that  the  whole  plexus  of  sub- 
stance and  form  has  been  thrust  aside  violently 
and  indiscriminately  by  the  long-repressed  forces  of 
progress  and  expansion.  When  the  Latin  Church 
points  with  ill-concealed  satisfaction  to  the  embar- 
rassments created  for  secularist  governments  by  a 
godless  freemasonry  or  by  an  anti-religious  socialism ; 
when  she  draws  thence  a  moral  as  to  her  own  indis- 
pensableness,  she  would  do  well  to  remember  how 
largely  the  responsibihty  for  this  chaos  and  anarchy 
lies  at  her  own  door.  Instead,  she  offers  these  gov- 
ernments the  alternative  of  restoring  her  mediaeval 
theocracy,  or  of  having  all  her  religious  influence 
used  for  their  overthrow. 

Yet  nothing  is  more  baseless  or  suicidal  than  this 
revolt  of  the  modern  world  against  Christ.  Where 
is  there  anything  good  or  true  or  lasting  in  its  in- 
spirations that  it  does  not  owe  to  Him  ?  Who  was 
it  that  taught  us  to  take  the  side  of  the  downtrodden 
multitudes  against  their  spiritual  and  temporal  op- 
pressors? Who  was  it  that  set  before  us  the  true 
ideals  of  liberty,  fraternity,  and  equality  ?  Who  was 
it  that  destroyed  the  preposterous  claims  of  absolut- 
ism and  taught  us  to  obey  God  rather  than  man  ? 
Who  was  it  that  made  truth  the  heritage  of  the 
crowd  and  not  the  monopoly  of  a  clerical  caste?  Who 


Introduction  xi 

swept  away  the  magisterial  in  favour  of  a  ministerial 
ideal  of  government  in  Church  and  State?  Who  was 
it  that  came  to  put  down  the  mighty  from  their  seat 
and  to  exalt  the  humble  and  meek;  to  fill  the  hungry 
and  send  the  rich  empty  away  ?  Who  was  it  that 
not  only  lived,  but  died  for  these  principles,  and  did 
so  formally  as  an  incarnate  manifestation  of  the  Di- 
vine Will  ?  Is  it  not  precisely  the  worship  of  Christ 
as  God,  the  confession  of  His  Gospel  as  the  Will  of 
God,  that  has  given  these  principles  of  truth  and 
liberty  a  vigour  which  has  enabled  them  to  struggle 
these  two  thousand  years  with  the  spirit  of  paganism, 
ever  seeking,  both  in  Church  and  State,  to  subdue 
them  to  its  own  selfish  ends?  And  alas !  with  such 
success  that  Christ  may  be  called  that  unknown  God 
which  the  secularised  world  of  to-day  ignorantly 
worships. 

We  can,  however,  conceive  a  very  changed  aspect 
of  affairs  if  the  Roman  Church  should  ever  come  to 
accept  the  Programme  of  Modernism.;  if  she  should 
ever  cease  to  claim  divine  origin  and  immutability 
for  the  governmental  forms,  the  intellectual  formulas, 
in  which  her  faith-experiences  found  suitable  expres- 
sion in  an  earlier  age,  and  should  adopt,  not  as  of 
absolute  but  as  of  relative  value,  those  of  the  rapidly- 
changing  times;  if  she  were  to  offer  her  spiritual 
services  to  civilisation,  not  in  favour  of  the  contin- 
gencies of  political  and  social  theories  or  of  philo- 


xii  Introduction 

sophical  and  scientific  opinions,  but  in  support  of  those 
eternal  and  unchanging  principles  of  the  Gospel 
which  are  and  have  been  the  inspiration  and  motive 
power  of  our  progress  towards  light  and  liberty. 
Still  more  would  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  a  relative 
though  unequal  value  in  all  religions,  if  rightly  ex- 
pressed and  understood,  do  much  to  soften  the  as- 
perities of  the  religious  problem  in  countries  where 
warring  creeds  now  trouble  the  public  peace  and 
force  governments  into  an  ostentatious  indifferentism 
that  is  practically  atheistic. 

For  although  modern  conditions  will  ever  forbid 
governments  to  appropriate  this  creed  or  that,  there 
is  no  reason  why  they  should  not  display  a  practical 
veneration  for  every  religion,  so  far  as  it  inculcates 
those  vital  and  pre-eminently  Christian  principles 
which  are  the  nerve,  bone,  and  muscle  of  public  life, 
and  so  far  as  it  lends  them  the  authority  of  a  divine 
origin  and  a  divine  sanction.  It  is  rather  the  ethical 
fruits  of  religion  than  its  other-world  theories  and 
constructions  that  are  of  direct  interest  to  the  public 
weal.  But  an  absolute  morality,  an  ethic  divorced 
from  religion,  has  never  yet  knit  a  people  together. 
Morality,  to  that  end,  must  have  a  mystical,  other- 
world  basis,  however  diverse  the  symbols  under 
which  it  is  conceived  and  expressed.  With  the 
nature  of  this  symbolism  the  State  need  not  concern 
itself.     All  its  care  need  be  that  the  moral  principles 


Introduction  xiii 

necessary  for  a  healthy  and  vigorous  public  life 
should  have  their  roots  in  eternity  and  their  sanction 
in  the  Will  that  rules  the  world — in  the  public  con- 
science recognised  as  the  voice  of  God.  As  long  as 
any  religion  gives  such  supernatural  sanction  to  the 
great  Christian  principles  of  self-renunciation,  self- 
mastery,  devotion  to  the  divine  cause  of  truth  and 
justice  and  liberty,  to  all  that  is  meant  by  the  King- 
dom of  God  upon  earth;  as  long  as  its  ethical  and 
social  fruits  are  not  enervating  and  decadent,  such  a 
religion,  whatever  its  theology,  deserves  not  merely 
liberty  and  toleration,  but  active  support  and  protec- 
tion as  co-operating  with  the  State  for  the  public 
good.  But  if  religions  will  step  out  of  their  bounds 
and  claim  divine  jurisdiction  in  the  foreign  realms  of 
politics  and  science ;  if  their  rivalries  with  one  an- 
other over  such  matters,  raised  to  points  of  faith, 
make  them  sources  of  social  disunion  and  rancour, 
then  the  present  miserable  conditions  will  only  go 
from  bad  to  worse,  and  Church  and  State  will  con- 
tinue to  diverge,  to  their  mutual  impoverishment 
and  destruction. 

There  should  be  no  question  of  the  State  being 
under  the  Churches,  or  of  the  Churches  under  the 
State.  This  is  analogous  to  the  false  dilemma  that 
arises  when  Faith  is  identified  with  its  contingent 
theological  expression,  and  we  are  asked :  Is  theology 
to  be  subject  to  the  other  sciences,  or  are  they  to  be 


xiv  Introduction 

subject  to  theology  ?  The  latter,  surely,  if  theology 
be  the  revealed  Word  of  God.  But  if  it  be  only  the 
scientific  and  human  expression  of  that  Word,  the 
dilemma  ceases.  No  science  is  to  be  subject  to  its 
fellow,  but  all  are  subject  together  to  experience  and 
to  the  general  principles  of  science.  Similarly,  if  the 
institutions  and  laws  and  officers  of  the  Church  are 
divine,  the  State  must  surely  be  subject  to  the 
Church.  But  if  they  are  only  representative  of  the 
divine,  then  both  State  and  Church  together  are  sub- 
ject to  an  end,  and  a  good  which  is  higher  than 
either  apart,  and  which  requires  both  of  them  for  its 
embodiment,  expression,  and  service.  However  in- 
articulately, the  Programme  of  Modernism  endeav- 
ours to  give  utterance  to  ideas  of  this  kind  that  are 
stirring  in  the  hearts  of  those  who  are  partisans 
neither  of  Church  nor  of  State,  but  of  the  common 
good  of  humanity,  to  which  both  are  but  instrumental. 

If  the  official  Church  of  Rome  almost  necessarily 
turns  a  deaf  ear  to  a  call  for  such  costing  self-renun- 
ciation, yet  all  the  living  fibres  of  her  vast  organism 
vibrate  responsively  to  that  voice  that  first  called 
her  into  existence,  and  now  calls  her  to  wake  from 
dreams  of  a  dead  past  to  the  reality  of  a  living 
present. 

Authority,  gradually  gathered  into  the  hands  of  a 
few  who  will  not  easily  suffer  themselves  to  be  dis- 
possessed, will  be  all  for  the  status  quo.     Yet  pres- 


Introduction  xv 

sure  from  without,  as  in  the  past  it  has  modified,  so 
in  the  near  future  may  utterly  nullify,  the  opposition 
offered  by  authority  to  the  spontaneous  development 
of  the  deeper  Catholicism.  Already  there  is  a  strong 
suggestion  of  despair  in  the  blind,  self-defeating  vio- 
lence of  its  opposition  to  the  forces  that  make  for  the 
life  of  the  Church  and  threaten  to  burst  her  bonds 
asunder.  We  seem  to  be  witnessing  the  last  convul- 
sions of  absolutism  in  its  death-agony.  It  is  hard 
not  to  see  the  hand  of  an  all-over-ruling  Providence 
in  the  way  that  the  deepest  desires  of  the  reigning 
Pontiff — of  whose  evangelical  spirit  there  need  be  no 
doubt — are  being  furthered  by  the  very  defeat  of  the 
measures  which  he  has  taken  for  their  realisation; 
how  the  unwise  counsels  he  has  received  from  far  less 
worthy  men  have  either  been  brought  to  nought  or 
have  produced  results  which  must  seem  to  him 
disastrous.  It  is  the  deepest  desire  of  our  heart  that 
always  prevails  with  Heaven,  not  our  faulty  interpre- 
tation and  utterance  of  it,  nor  our  misdirected  efforts 
for  its  fulfilment.  The  hearts  of  popes,  as  of  kings, 
are  in  the  hand  of  the  Lord,  and  He  turns  them 
whither  He  will. 

In  conclusion,  there  are  two  documents  within  the 
covers  of  this  little  volume,  each  the  manifestation  of 
a  spirit,  each  purporting  to  be  the  true  interpretation 
of  Catholic  Christianity.  Apart  from  the  detailed 
examination  of  their  arguments  we  should  attend  to 


xvi  Introduction 

their  cumulative  appeal,  not  merely  to  the  mind  but 
to  the  heart  and  the  religious  sense.  In  each  case 
let  us  ask  ourselves :  What  manner  of  spirit  is  this? 
A  spirit  of  light  or  of  darkness;  of  peace  or  of  strife; 
of  sweetness  or  of  bitterness  ;  of  gentleness  or  of 
violence ;  of  comprehension  or  of  exclusiveness  ? 
Whose  voice  do  we  hear?  *'He  that  heareth  you, 
heareth  Me,"  are  v/ords  that  have  often  received  a 
strangely  harsh  and  juridical  interpretation.  They 
mean  that  those  only  who  speak  as  Christ  spoke 
speak  in  His  name;  and  that  those  who  have  once 
heard  His  voice  will  recognise  it  when  they  hear  it 
again,  and  will  obey  it  with  that  absolute  obedience 
due  to  spiritual  authority  alone — to  the  appeal  of 
Truth  to  the  mind,  and  of  Goodness  to  the  conscience, 
and  of  Love  to  the  heart. 

A.  L.  L. 

London,  December  27,  1907. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

I.  Need  of  an  Explanation  .  .  i 

II.  Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  : 

Sec.  I. — Not  Philosophy  but  Criticism  the 

Presupposition  of  Modernism  .         12 

Sec.  2. — The  Apologetic  of  the  Modernists         93 

III.  Particular  Questions  : 

Sec.  I. — The  Relative  Value  of  Religions       121 
Sec.  2. — Science  and  Faith  .  .124 

Sec.  3. — Church  and  State  .  .126 

Sec.  4. — Re'sumd       .  .  .  .129 

IV.  The  Campaign  Against  Modernism  .       131 

V.  Conclusion    .....       135 

VI.  Encyclical     Letter — Pascendi    Dominici 

Gregis        .  .  .  .  .149 

Part  I. — Analysis   of   Modernist  Teaching       154 

Part  IL — The  Cause  of  Modernism  .       219 

Part  III. — Remedies  .  .  .       227 


The  Programme  of 
Modernism 


NEED  OF  AN  EXPLANATION 

A  DOCUMENT  so  weighty,  both  in  substance 
and  form,  as  the  Encyclical  which  we  have 
reproduced  at  the  end  of  this  book ;  an  attempt  so 
deliberate  to  present  "Modernist"*  views  to  the 
public  under  a  false  and  unfavourable  Hght ;  a  con- 
demnation so  authoritative  of  us  Modernists  as 
dangerous  foes  of  Christian  piety  and  unconscious 
promoters  of  atheism,  make  it  a  duty,  which  we  owe 
to  our  own  conscience,  to  the  collective  conscience, 
of  the  faithful,  and  to  an  anxious  and  expectant 
public,  to  lay  bare  our  whole  mind  without  reserve 
or  concealment.  We  cannot  possibly  remain  silent 
under  the  violent  accusation  which  the  chief  author- 
ity of  the  Church,  albeit  recognising  us  as  her  faith- 


*  Let  us  say,  once  and  for  all,  that  we  use  this  term  only  that  we 
may  be  understood  by  those  who  have  learnt  it  from  the  Encyclical, 
and  that  we  do  not  need  a  new  name  to  describe  an  attitude  which 
we  consider  to  be  simply  that  of  Christians  and  Catholics  who  live  in 
harmony  with  the  spirit  of  their  day. 


2        The  Programme  of  Modernism 

ful  subjects  and  as  resolved  to  cling  to  her  till  our 
last  breath,  heaps  upon  our  head.  Hence  there  is 
nothing  arrogant  in  our  reply,  since  it  is  an  ele- 
mentary principle  of  justice  for  those  who  are  ac- 
cused to  defend  themselves;  nor  can  we  believe 
that  this  right  has  been  taken  from  us  at  a  moment 
so  critical  for  the  fortunes  of  Catholic  Christianity. 
And  this  all  the  more  that  if  the  Encyclical,  with  un- 
wonted harshness,  has  struck  us  with  a  peremptory 
condemnation,  it  has  also  chosen,  by  a  procedure 
for  which  we  are  most  grateful,  to  set  forth  our 
opinions  in  its  own  fashion  and  to  precede  its  verdict 
by  a  somewhat  facile  refutation  of  them.  On  this 
account  we  are  led  to  hold  that  verdict  for  a  valid 
one  only  just  so  far  as  the  synthesis  of  our  position 
contained  in  the  Encyclical  is  exact,  and  so  far  as 
the  reasons  arrayed  against  us  in  the  name  of  tradi- 
tion are  solid.  It  is  therefore  not  only  our  right  but 
our  duty  to  intervene,  to  expose  the  unfair  attack 
which  the  Encyclical  seems  to  make  upon  us,  and 
to  examine  the  teachings  for  which  we  are  rebuked. 
Devoted  sons  of  the  Church,  obedient  to  that  author- 
ity in  which  we  recognise  a  continuation  of  the 
apostolic  pastoral  ministry,  aware  of  the  harmony 
which  in  every  religious  society  should  govern  the 
relations  between  the  rulers  and  the  individual  con- 
science, sharers  in  that  intense  spiritual  life  which 
pervades  all  the  members  of  the  Catholic  community 


Need  of  an  Explanation  3 

which  is  the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  we  present  our- 
selves without  any  disrespect,  but  with  a  profound 
sense  of  the  rights  of  our  religious  personality,  before 
the  tribunal  of  the  community  to  which  we  belong 
to  answer  the  accusations  alleged  against  us.  We 
do  not  offer  excuses,  still  less  are  we  going  to  beg 
pardon  as  offenders;  we  simply  set  forth  our  position 
and  invite  the  judgment  of  our  brethren  upon  it,  and 
indeed  the  judgment  of  history.  At  this  moment, 
pregnant  with  all  sorts  of  moral  revolution,  when  the 
intellectual  world,  still  alienated  from  Christ  and  his 
Church,  progresses  in  a  hundred  ways  towards  some 
indefinable  renewal  of  spirit,  we  ask  ourselves 
frankly :  Is  there  in  the  Catholic  Church — In  that 
great  organism  in  which  the  religious  spirit  of  the 
Gospel  has  come  to  embody  itself — is  there  a  power  of 
conquest  or  simply  a  conservative  instinct?  Does  she 
still  hide  in  the  secret  complexities  of  her  wonderful 
organisation  capacities  for  winning  adherents,  or  is 
her  vitality  threatened  by  the  germs  of  a  speedy 
decay  ?  Is  her  mission  henceforth  to  be  limited  to  a 
suspicious  vigilance  over  the  rude  and  simple  faith 
of  her  rapidly-dwindling  followers,  or  will  she  rouse 
herself  to  the  reacquisition  of  that  social  influence 
which  she  has  lost  through  long  years  of  listless  self- 
isolation?  For  ourselves,  we  have  long  since  an- 
swered this  critical  question.  We  have  ever  watched 
the  aspirations  of  the  contemporary  mind  with  sym- 


4       The  Programme  of  Modernism 

pathetic  interest ;  our  hearts  have  beaten  in  unison 
with  its  glowing  enthusiasm  for  the  new  ideals  of 
universal  brotherhood ;  and  we  have  seen  in  all  its 
movements  the  symptoms  of  a  glorious  revival  of 
religion.  Spontaneously  the  word  of  Christ  has  risen 
to  our  lips :  "  Behold  the  fields  are  white  unto  the 
harvest!  Lift  up  your  heads  for  your  redemption 
draweth  nigh."  Speaking  the  language  of  our  age, 
and  thinking  its  thought,  we  have  tried  to  bring  it 
into  touch  with  the  teachings  of  Catholicism,  that 
through  such  contact  their  profound  mutual  affinities 
might  be  made  evident.  We  cannot  believe  that  the 
Church  will  ultimately  reject  our  programme  as  mis- 
chievous. We  may  well  have  made  mistakes  in 
some  of  our  conciliatory  attempts;  in  which  case 
we  desire  nothing  better  than  charitable  correction. 
But  this  is  no  reason  for  passing  a  sharp  and  peremp- 
tory condemnation  on  the  whole  of  a  work  which 
has  cost  so  much  sacrifice  and  self-denial. 

If  the  Church  has  not  lost  all  sense  of  her  Catholic 
destiny,  if  in  the  depths  of  her  soul  there  still  re- 
verberates some  echo  of  the  prophecy,  "  There  shall 
be  one  fold  and  one  shepherd,"  she  should  break 
forth  from  the  narrow  confines  of  her  deserted  sanct- 
uary, no  longer  visited  by  the  warmth  of  that  public 
life  which  throbs  alike  in  the  workshop  and  the  uni- 
versity ;  she  should  try  to  get  into  touch  with  men,  to 
find  the  way  to  their  consciences,  to  kill  the  distrust 


Need  of  an  Explanation  5 

of  her  bred  in  them  by  aloofness  and  misunder- 
standing. It  is  a  question  of  reviving  a  piety  that 
has  been  perverted,  of  seeking  in  the  depths  of  the 
interior  Hfe  the  buried,  but  not  extinguished,  sparks 
of  the  ancient  spirit  of  Christianity,  of  insisting  on 
those  ideals  which  govern  the  activity  of  the  v^^orld 
of  to-day  and  which  are  Christian  in  substance — that 
sense  of  altruism,  that  desire  of  sacrifice,  which  only 
the  Gospel  can  infuse — in  short,  of  uniting  the  scat- 
tered fragments  of  Christendom  in  some  higher 
expression  of  that  religious  hope  which  is  the  sum 
and  substance  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  But  the 
Church  and  Society  can  never  meet  on  the  basis  of 
those  ideas  which  prevailed  at  the  Council  of  Trent, 
nor  can  they  converse  together  in  mediaeval  lan- 
guage. How  many  days  have  dawned  since  the  time 
of  Innocent  III. !  How  many  events  have  ripened 
since  those  of  Paul  III.!  Philosophy  and  religious 
thought  which  grow  with  the  growth  of  the  general 
mind,  present  to-day  a  very  different  aspect  from 
any  which  the  monks  of  the  mediaeval  universities  or 
the  apologists  of  the  counter-Reformation  could 
possibly  have  foreseen.  What  wonder  then  that  the 
old  dogmatic  formularies  sound  uninteUigible  to  our 
contemporaries,  or  that  the  traditional  theocratic 
pretensions  shock  their  most  elementary  sense  of 
personal  responsibility?  The  general,  like  the  in- 
dividual,  consciousness   never   passes  through  two 


6       The  Programme  of  Modernism 

perfectly  similar  moments  in  its  history.  As  every 
impression  and  external  event  writes  itself  in  the 
spirit,  and  by  enriching  it  transforms  it  into  some- 
thing new,  so  the  collective  mind  and  sentiments 
are  continually  transformed  by  the  course  of  history. 
To  exist  is  to  change.  Whence  it  is  clear  that  it  is 
impossible  to  impose  religious  experience  on  the 
modern  mind  in  the  same  forms  as  were  adapted  to 
the  utterly  different  mediaeval  mind.  The  Church 
cannot,  and  ought  not  to,  pretend  that  the  Summa 
of  Aquinas  answers  to  the  exigencies  of  religious 
thought  in  the  twentieth  century.  The  amorphous 
theology  of  the  Carlovingian  days  proved  insufficient 
to  the  university  requirements  of  the  thirteenth 
century.  The  theories  of  the  Pauline  literature  were 
revised  and  transformed  by  the  platonising  fathers 
of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries.  Nor,  on  the 
other  hand,  should  the  Church  be  fearful,  as  though 
the  venerable  rehgious  traditions  of  which  she  is  the 
jealous  guardian  were  now  incapable  of  any  vital 
adaptation.  What  was  possible  in  the  past  is  possi- 
ble to-day,  and  will  be  always  possible.  The  relig- 
ion of  Christ,  which  is  simply  a  spirit  of  hope  in 
the  triumph  of  the  divine  kingdom  of  righteous- 
ness, is  susceptible  of  any  theoretical  restatement 
that  rests  on  idealistic  presuppositions.  And  such 
presuppositions  are  common  to  the  new  tendencies 
of  current  philosophy   which  the  Church   therefore 


Need  of  an  Explanation  7 

can  embrace  with  a  secure  conscience,  quicken- 
ing it  with  the  lofty  aspirations  fostered  by  the 
Gospel.  Authority,  therefore,  should  not  condemn 
a  priori  this  labour  of  synthesis  enthusiastically 
inaugurated  by  so  many  high-minded  thinkers. 

The  Encyclical  reproaches  us  with  pride  and  ob- 
stinacy. We  would  fain  search  our  hearts  for  the 
most  fervid  utterance  of  our  Christian  feeling  and 
say  to  Pius  X. :  "  Holy  Father,  as  becomes  your 
devoted  sons,  we  can  assure  you  in  all  frankness  and 
sincerity  that  our  work  is  untainted  by  any  sort  of 
vain  desire  of  praise.  We  have  passed  through  long 
periods  of  anguish  when,  on  leaving  our  Catholic 
schools  or  seminaries,  with  our  minds  full  of  schol- 
astic teaching,  we  have  little  by  little  grown  familiar 
with  the  culture  of  our  own  times  and  have  felt  the 
solidity  of  that  theoretical  ground  which  we  had 
learnt  to  regard  as  the  indisputable  basis  of  Catholic 
faith  give  way  beneath  our  feet.  By  prayer  and  by 
study  we  have  sought  light  from  on  high,  and  this 
light  has  been  created  in  our  souls.  The  pretended 
bases  of  faith  have  proved  themselves  rotten  beyond 
cure.  But  the  faith  itself,  that  rich  heritage  of 
Catholic  religious  experience,  we  have  felt  beating 
with  a  new  life  within  our  hearts,  and  we  have  seen 
unmistakably  its  perfect  consistence  with  the  best 
exigencies  of  contemporary  thought.  We  have  girt 
ourselves  to  the  task  of  spreading  to  those  round  us 


8       The  Programme  of  Modernism 

this  new  experience  of  Catholicism  whose  possibili- 
ties of  success  we  have  discerned.  Do  not  repulse 
us,  Holy  Father !  our  efforts  may  fail,  but  our  pro- 
gramme is  vital,  nor  is  there  any  other  way  for  the 
Church  to  succeed." 

This  is  what  we  would  say  to  him  who  embodies 
the  teaching  authority  of  the  Church.  Shall  we  then 
be  regarded  as  rebels  ?     It  is  possible. 

Through  a  series  of  causes  into  which  we  need  not 
here  enter,  Catholics  seem  to  have  lost  every  ele- 
mentary sense  of  responsibility  and  personal  dignity. 
Instead  of  being  met  with  a  service  of  reasonable  and 
therefore  discerning  obedience,  the  acts  of  their 
supreme  rulers  are  received  with  the  unconscious 
acquiescence  of  irresponsible  beings.  This  reacts  un- 
favourably on  the  exercise  of  authority  itself  which 
loses  sight  of  its  proper  limits  and  its  true  function, 
and  transforms  itself  into  an  absolutism  inconsistent 
with  that  reasonable  spiritual  government  instituted 
by  Christ  "  in  whom  we  have  passed  from  servitude 
to  freedom." 

Hence,  whatever  may  at  first  be  thought  of  our 
conduct,  we  believe  we  are  rendering  a  true  service 
to  the  Church  in  breaking  through  this  deplorable 
tradition  of  abuses  and  concessions,  and  in  respect- 
fully but  firmly  explaining  our  contentions,  which 
have  been  condemned  only  because  so  little  under- 
stood by  those  in  power.     And  in  this  we  shall  only 


Need  of  an  Explanation  9 

be  following  the  lead  of  some  of  the  Church's  noblest 
children,  who  in  similar  crises  never  hesitated  to  come 
to  the  aid  of  authority  with  their  loyal  warnings  and 
reproaches.  That  this  may  not  seem  mere  assertion, 
let  us  call  to  mind  the  words  addressed  to  Pope 
Boniface  IV.  by  the  great  Irish  saint,  Columbanus, 
founder  of  the  monastery  of  Bobbio.  At  the  begin- 
ning of  the  seventh  century  Italy  was  in  a  state  of 
veritable  religious  anarchy.  The  so-called  question 
of  the  three  Chapters  divided  clergy  and  laity  into  a 
host  of  conflicting  parties,  each  of  which,  being  pre- 
occupied with  domestic  controversies,  was  utterly 
indifferent  to  the  conversion  of  the  Arians,  with 
whom  Lombardy  was  infested.  The  Papacy  itself, 
aware  of  the  weakness  of  Vigilius,  did  not  dare  to 
meddle  in  so  serious  a  dispute  or  to  use  its  authority 
to  command  peace.  Slanderous  rumours  were  circu- 
lated as  to  the  orthodoxy  of  Boniface  IV.,  who  had 
not  courage  to  speak  out  and  repel  the  calumny. 
It  was  necessary  to  shake  Rome  out  of  her  torpor, 
and  to  point  out  to  the  Pope  the  only  way  to  secure 
peace.  From  his  monastery  Columbanus  boldly 
wrote:*  "  God's  cause  is  in  danger;  I  will  not  fear 
what  men  may  say.  When  necessity  urges  we  must 
give  no  ear  to  the  suggestions  of  timidity  and  weak- 
ness. Listen  then,  Holy  Father,  to  the  suggestions 
of  a  loving  heart  and  loyal  soul.     Whatever  I  say 


♦Ep.  V.  M.P.L.  80. 


lo     The  Programme  of  Modernism 

that  is  useful  and  right  will  all  redound  to  your 
honour,  for  does  not  the  wisdom  of  the  scholars  bring 
glory  to  their  teacher?  But  should  any  unseason- 
able words  escape  me,  put  them  down  not  to  my 
pride  but  to  my  indiscretion.  Behold,  Father,  how 
the  billows  rage,  how  the  waves  fill  the  ship,  and 
the  ship  is  in  peril!  And  the  fault  is  yours,  if 
you  have  done  wrong.  Your  sons  do  right  to  resist 
you,  to  hold  no  further  communion  with  you  till  the 
memory  of  the  wicked  be  rooted  out  and  consigned 
to  oblivion.  If  all  they  say  is  true,  your  sons  are  at 
the  head  and  you  are  at  the  tail,  and  sorry  I  am  to 
have  to  say  so.  They,  therefore,  shall  be  your 
judges  (albeit  your  sons)  who  have  always  re- 
mained true  to  the  faith.  And  so  the  more  you  are 
honoured  by  the  dignity  of  your  position,  so  much 
the  more  are  you  most  undoubtedly  bound  to  take 
all  precautions  lest  your  power  suffer  shipwreck 
through  any  fault  of  your  own.  You  will  keep  that 
power  in  your  hands  just  so  long  as  your  conscience 
is  straight.  He  alone  is  the  faithful  doorkeeper  of 
God's  kingdom  who,  holding  the  true  doctrine, 
knows  how  to  let  in  the  worthy  and  keep  out  the 
unworthy.  Although  we  all  know  how  Christ 
trusted  Peter  with  the  keys  (on  the  strength  of  which 
fact  you  claim  I  know  not  what  proud  privileges  of 
authority  over  others),  yet  remember  your  power  will 
decrease  before  God  if  you  forget  the  duties  it  entails." 


Need  of  an  Explanation  ii 

Thus  have  saints  spoken  in  the  face  of  Peter,  not 
because  they  deemed  themselves  saints,  but  because 
they  were  sensible  of  those  duties  common  to  all  loyal 
sons  of  the  Church,  be  they  saints  or  sinners.  Fol- 
lowing such  examples,  which  we  might  easily  multiply, 
and  all-conscious  of  our  shortcomings  in  respect  to 
sanctity,  we  would  say  to  Pius  X. :  "  Give  ear  to  us. 
Holy  Father.  We  propose  to  you  a  method  which 
has  already  shown  itself  useful  in  regaining  that 
spiritual  power  in  the  world  which  the  Church  has 
so  pitiably  forfeited.  Before  you  reject  us,  before 
you  solemnly  bury  yourself  away  in  mediaeval  dreams 
of  a  political  and  intellectual  theocracy,  think  for  a 
moment  on  your  responsibility  to  God,  to  society,  to 
history,  and  consider  carefully  whether  your  policy 
of  a  return  to  the  past  may  not  end  in  sterilising 
the  Church  of  which  you  are  in  charge.'* 


EXPLANATION    OF   THE    MODERNIST 
SYSTEM 

SEC.    I. — NOT     PHILOSOPHY     BUT     CRITICISM    THE 
PRESUPPOSITION   OF  MODERNISM 

FIRST  of  all  we  must  lay  bare  an  equivocation  by 
which  inexpert  readers  of  the  Encyclical  might 
easily  be  misled.  That  document  starts  with  the 
assumption  that  there  lies  at  the  root  of  Modernism 
a  certain  philosophical  system  from  which  we  deduce 
our  critical  methods,  whether  biblical  or  historical; 
in  other  words,  that  our  zeal  to  reconcile  the  doc- 
trines of  Catholic  tradition  with  the  conclusions  of 
positive  science  springs  really  from  some  theoretical 
apriorism  which  we  defend  through  our  ignorance 
of  scholasticism  and  the  rebellious  pride  of  our  rea- 
son. Now  the  assertion  is  false,  and  since  it  is  the 
basis  on  which  the  Encyclical  arranges  its  various 
arguments  we  cannot  in  our  reply  follow  the  order 
of  that  fallacious  arrangement ;  but  we  must  first  of 
all  show  the  utter  emptiness  of  this  allegation, 
and  then  discuss  the  theories  which  the  Encyclical 
imputes  to  us. 

In  truth,  the  historical  development,  the  methods 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  13 

and  programme  of  so-called  Modernism  are  very 
different  from  what  they  are  said  to  be  by  the 
compilers  of  Pascendi  Gregis. 

So  far  from  our  philosophy  dictating  our  critical 
method,  it  is  the  critical  method  that  has,  of  its  own 
accord,  forced  us  to  a  very  tentative  and  uncertain 
formulation  of  various  philosophical  conclusions,  or 
better  still,  to  a  clearer  exposition  of  certain  ways  of 
thinking  to  which  Catholic  apologetic  has  never  been 
wholly  a  stranger.  This  independence  of  our  criti- 
cism in  respect  to  our  purely  tentative  philosophy  is 
evident  in  many  ways. 

First  of  all,  of  their  own  nature,  textual  criticism, 
as  well  as  the  so-called  Higher  Criticism  (that  is, 
the  internal  analysis  of  biblical  documents  with  a 
view  to  establishing  their  origin  and  value),  prescind 
entirely  from  philosophical  assumptions.  A  single 
luminous  example  will  suffice — that  furnished  by  the 
question  of  the  Comma  JoJianneum — now  settled 
for  ever.  In  past  days  when  theologians  wanted  to 
prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  they  never  omitted 
to  quote  from  the  Vulgate  (i  John  v.  7):  "  There  are 
three  that  bear  record  in  Heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word^ 
and  the  Holy  Ghost''  Now  the  italicised  words  are 
lacking  in  all  the  Greek  MSS.  of  to-day,  cursive  or 
uncial,  and  in  all  the  Greek  epistolaries  and  lection- 
aries,  and  in  all  the  ancient  translations,  except  the 
Vulgate,  in  the  works  of  the  Greek  Fathers  and  of 


14      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

other  Greek  writers  prior  to  the  twelfth  century, 
in  those  of  all  the  ancient  Syrian  and  Armenian 
writers,  and  in  those  of  a  great  number  of  the  Latin 
Fathers.  This  silence  of  East  and  West  is  all  the 
more  remarkable  as  the  passage  would  have  been  of 
priceless  value  in  the  Arian  controversy.  That  it 
was  not  then  appealed  to,  proves  that  it  did  not 
exist  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  More- 
over, a  collation  of  MSS.  and  their  comparison  with 
the  works  of  the  heretic  Priscillian,  discovered  a  few 
years  ago,  makes  it  clear  that  the  verse  in  question 
comes  from  Spain,  and  was  fabricated  by  that  heretic 
(a.d.  384)  in  favour  of  his  trinitarian  views,  of  which 
Peregrinus  made  himself  the  propagandist.  Now  it  is 
plain  that  in  order  to  arrive  at  such  a  conclusion  and 
to  study  such  a  literary  problem  critically,  no  sort  of 
philosophical  doctrine  or  presupposition  is  required. 
The  same  can  be  said  of  a  whole  host  of  biblical  and 
historical  problems  whose  impartial  solutions,  lead- 
ing to  results  so  different  from  those  of  traditional 
Catholic  criticism,  are  the  true  cause  of  that  revolu- 
tion in  religious  apologetic  which  we  find  forced 
upon  us  by  sheer  necessity.  Does  one  really  need 
any  special  philosophical  preparation  to  trace  a 
diversity  of  sources  in  the  Pentateuch,  or  to  con- 
vince oneself,  by  the  most  superficial  comparison  of 
texts,  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  a  substantially 
different  kind  of  work  from  the  synoptics,  or  that 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  15 

the  Nicene  Creed  is  essentially  a  development  of 
the  Apostles'  Creed  ? 

But  besides  these  intrinsic  reasons,  we  can  in- 
voke indisputable  facts  in  proof  of  the  independence 
of  our  criticism  in  relation  to  our  philosophical 
tendencies. 

First  of  all,  this  criticism  is  far  more  ancient 
than  the  philosophy  with  which  we  are  credited. 
Nothing  had  been  heard  of  "  agnosticism  "  or  **  im- 
manentism  "  when  between  1670  and  1690  Richard 
Simon  published  his  marvellous  Histoires  Critiques 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  which  represents  the 
first  really  serious  application  of  scientific  methods 
to  the  study  of  the  documentary  records  of  Catholic 
Revelation.  The  first  of  the  two  volumes,  in  par- 
ticular, is  at  once  a  splendid  scientific  reconstruction 
of  the  literary  history  of  the  Israelites  founded  on 
a  minute  examination  of  the  state  of  the  texts  that 
have  gone  to  the  compilation  of  the  Bible  and  also 
an  admirable  treatise  on  the  critical  classification 
of  the  versions  of  the  Hebrew  text,  with  a  list  of 
the  varieties  of  interpretations  which  it  has  received 
at  different  periods. 

Nothing  had  been  heard  of  *'  symbolism  "  or  of 
historical  "  transfiguration  "  when  Dr.  J.  Astruc,  in 
an  anonymous  work  published  at  Brussels  1753, 
"  Conjectures  sur  les  memoires  originaux  dont  il 
parait  que  Moise  s'est  servi  pour  composer  le  livre 


1 6      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

de  la  Gen^se,"  tried  for  the  first  time  to  system- 
atise the  theory  of  the  most  ancient  source  used  in 
that  part  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Since  the  time  of  those  great  men,  criticism,  with- 
out the  slightest  vestige  of  philosophic  preoccupa- 
tion, has  applied  to  the  Bible  and  to  the  history  of 
Christianity  those  very  same  scientific  principles 
which  indeed  are  not  susceptive  of  any  change  or 
perversion  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  are  the 
principles  of  historical  science  as  such.  We  are  not 
to  blame  if,  arriving  on  the  scene  after  centuries  of 
critical  study,  we  find  all  those  positions  destroyed 
which  traditional  theology  had  assumed  without 
discussing  the  texts  or  making  sure  of  their  docu- 
mentary value ;  on  the  contrary,  we  think  we  deserve 
well  of  religious  apologetic  if  we  honestly  strive 
to  transfer  the  rational  defence  of  faith  from  the 
tottering  basis  of  what  has  proved  to  be  an  anti- 
critical  exegesis,  to  the  solid,  because  unassailable, 
basis  offered  by  the  deepest  exigencies  of  the  human 
soul  and  by  those  spiritual  life-needs  which  have 
given  birth  to  the  whole  process  of  Christianity. 

Furthermore,  the  independence  and  priority  of 
criticism  in  relation  to  philosophy  in  our  intellectual 
movement  can  be  established  clearly  in  the  case  of 
more  than  one  of  our  representative  students.  It 
was  his  long  critical  researches  as  to  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  that  led  Abbe  Loisy,  whose  former 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  1 7 

work  had  been  exclusively  critical,  to  write  his  cele- 
brated studies  (in  1900  and  1901)  on  Revelation  and 
on  The  Religioji  of  Israel y  which  were  the  beginning 
of  his  apologetic  labours.  It  has  been  a  prolonged 
documentary  study  of  the  Gospel  narratives  that  has 
led  so  many  of  us  to  revise  the  traditional  opin- 
ions about  the  foundation  of  the  Church  and  the 
institution  of  the  Sacraments. 

Finally,  it  has  been  long  years  passed  in  the 
patient  comparison  of  the  various  stages  that  mark 
the  development  of  Catholic  thought  that  have 
almost  unconsciously  driven  us  to  adopt  a  new 
theory  as  to  the  development  of  dogma  from  the 
teaching  of  Christ,  preferring  to  see  everywhere  the 
continual  and  secret  working  of  a  divine  indwelling 
spirit  rather  than  contradict  plain  facts  by  admitting 
an  abrupt  and  complete  revelation  of  the  Credo  v^hich 
never  took  place.  This  is  so  true  that  some  of  us, 
who  are  constitutionally  averse  to  synthetic  efforts 
and  impatient  of  every  attempt  at  apologetic  con- 
ciliation, avow  ourselves  critics  pure  and  simple, 
ignoring,  if  not  actually  opposing,  any  tentative  hy- 
pothesis to  harmonise  an  unchanging  faith  with  a 
progressive  critical  science. 

We  seem  to  have  said  enough  to  show  that  it  is 
not  an  impartial  estimate  of  facts  but  a  clever 
polemical  stratagem  that  leads  the  authors  of  the 
Encyclical  to  strike  at  what  they  suppose  to  be  cer- 


1 8      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

tain  philosophical  presuppositions  of  our  system,  but 
what  are  in  any  case  the  conclusions  of  long  critical 
efforts  and  not  the  premisses  nor  the  directing  prin- 
ciples of  the  research  by  which  those  conclusions 
were  reached.  Hence  we  cannot,  still  less  should  we 
desire  to,  follow  the  EncycHcal  on  to  a  ground  so 
treacherous  and  insecure.  No  doubt  it  was  a  very 
convenient  artifice  to  present  our  movement  to  the 
public  as  hingeing  on  a  few  abstract  principles  (how 
sorely  distorted  we  shall  presently  see)  whose 
designed  paradoxical  form  makes  them  glaringly 
incompatible  with  the  fundamental  positions  of 
Catholic  theology.  But  it  would  be  folly  on  our 
part  to  let  such  an  equivocation  pass  without  pro- 
test. We  must  rather  vindicate  before  all  things  the 
critical  basis  and  fundamental  facts  on  which  our 
whole  system  rests ;  we  must  show  that  if  Modernism 
is  not  merely  an  empty  or  ambiguous  term  it  stands 
for  a  method,  or  rather  for  the  critical  method,  ap- 
plied conscientiously  to  the  religious  forms  of  hu- 
manity in  general,  and  to  Catholicism  in  particular. 
And  if  such  a  faithful  application  leads  to  a  complete 
revision  of  the  positive  bases  on  which  the  scholastic 
interpretation  of  Catholicism  was  raised,  and  so 
provokes  the  need  of  a  new  apology  for  our  faith, 
this  is  not  due  to  a  freakish  caprice  of  our  reason, 
proudly  contemptuous  of  scholasticism,  whose  prin- 
ciples, on  the  contrary,  we  understand  very  well  and 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  19 

whose  historical  function  we  appreciate.  It  is  due 
to  a  manifest  exigence  of  the  rch'gious  sense  which 
seeks  to  preserve  its  power  over  men  in  ever  new 
forms  of  thought.  It  was  inevitable  that  mediaeval 
scholasticism  {i.  e.,  the  fusion  of  Aristotelian  thought 
with  Catholic  teaching  such  as  it  was  up  to  the  end 
of  the  twefth  century)  springing  into  existence  in  a 
period  void  of  the  least  vestige  of  historic  sense  and 
of  the  remotest  suspicion  as  to  what  had  been  the 
actual  facts  of  the  evolution  of  Christianity — it  was 
inevitable  that  such  a  system  should  fall  to  pieces  as 
soon  as  its  presupposition  of  a  mechanical  revela- 
tion, petrified  in  the  moment  of  its  instantaneous 
completion,  was  found  to  be  based  on  bibHcal  and 
patristic  texts  accepted  without  any  sense  of  critical 
discernment.  Add  to  this,  the  criticism  to  which 
the  logical  realism  of  Aristotle  has  been  subjected 
by  the  more  recent  philosophical  tradition,  and  it  is 
easy  to  imagine  the  disastrous  crisis  which  has  arisen 
for  the  scholastic  interpretation  of  Catholicism. 
Modernism  has  been  born  and  matured  by  the  need 
of  meeting  this  lamentable  crisis,  and  it  will  continue 
to  bear  this  party-name  till  the  day  when,  after  hav- 
ing created  and  propagated  this  new  interpretation 
of  Catholicism  by  force  of  its  tenacious  devotedness. 
It  will  mingle  with,  and  become  one  and  the  same 
thing  as,  Catholicism. 

The  reasons  are  clear,  then,  why  we  do  not  think 


2  0      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

fit  to  follow  the  Encyclical  line  by  line  in  the  decep- 
tive picture  it  draws  of  the  Modernist  as  philosopher, 
believer,  theologian,  critic,  apologist,  reformer,  and 
to  set  over  against  each  head  of  its  accusation  the 
sincere  explanation  of  our  modest  aims  and  our  true 
ideas.  To  us  it  seems  a  strange  pretension  to  pre- 
sent Modernism  as  a  synthesis,  since  we  are  the  first 
to  declare  openly  and  emphatically  that  we  have  as 
yet  no  definite  synthesis  and  are  only  groping  our 
way  laboriously,  and  with  much  hesitation,  from  the 
now  assured  results  of  criticism  to  some  sort  of 
apologetic,  whose  aim  is  not  to  subvert  tradition 
but  solely  to  make  use  of  the  eternal  postulates  of 
religion  familiar  to  the  most  authentic  conception 
of  CathoHcism. 

We  shall  therefore  put  together  briefly  the  results 
of  biblical  and  historical  criticism ;  we  shall  show 
how  they  have  simply  necessitated  a  change  in  our 
conception  of  inspiration  and  of  revelation,  and  the 
introduction  of  the  conception  of  religious  evolution  ; 
how,  as  regards  the  New  Testament,  they  have 
necessitated  a  distinction  between  the  outward 
history  and  the  inward  history,  between  the  his- 
torical Christ  and  the  mystical  Christ,  the  Christ 
of  reason  and  the  Christ  of  faith;  we  shall  call  at- 
tention to  the  undeniable  fact  that  the  Catholic 
tradition  (that  is,  the  living  transmission  of  the 
religious  spirit  liberated  by  the  Gospel)  has  under- 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  21 

gone  profound  revolutions  in  respect  to  its  theoretic 
formulation,  beginning  with  the  Messianic  preach- 
ings of  Christ  and  going  on  to  the  Hellenistic  Fathers 
of  the  second  century  ;  thence,  to  the  anti-Gnostic 
controversialists;  thence  to  the  definitions  of  the 
first  ecumenical  councils,  to  the  mediaeval  doctors, 
to  the  scholastic  systematisation,  to  the  Tridentine 
formulas.  And  from  this  we  shall  show  how  the 
honest  recognition  of  such  an  evolution  has  led  us 
to  justify  our  faith  by  the  notion  of  the  permanence 
of  something  divine  in  the  life  of  the  Church,  in  virtue 
whereof  every  new  doctrinal  formulation,  every  new 
juridical  institution  (in  so  far  as  it  more  or  less  con- 
sciously tends  to  the  preservation  of  the  Gospel  spirit) 
can  claim  a  divine  origin  and  a  divine  maintenance. 

No  one  can  evade  the  results  of  scientific  history, 
and  so  we  shall  start  from  them.  Modern  criticism 
has  revolutionised  the  historical  outlook;  its  method 
has  become  a  most  deHcate  and  complex  instrument 
on  which  alone  we  can  depend  if  our  evocation  of  the 
buried  past  is  not  to  be  mere  fiction  or  romance.  In 
applying  this  method  to  religious  documents  and 
tradition  we  are  only  logically  consistent.  Besides, 
we  are  thus  only  obeying  an  orthodox  postulate  of 
theology  which  puts  the  sacred  Scriptures  first  among 
the  loci  theologici  (that  is,  the  source  from  which  the 
teachings  of  faith  can  be  drawn),  and  which  demands 
that  the  Scriptures  be  so   seriously   and    carefully 


2  2      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

studied  that  the  structure  reared  upon  them  may  not 
rest  upon  sand.  When  it  is  objected  that  Catholics 
prove  the  authority  of  the  Church  from  Scripture, 
and  the  authority  of  Scripture  from  the  Church,  our 
approved  apologists  answer  rightly  that,  in  the 
former  case,  we  argue  from  Scripture  not  as  divinely 
inspired  but  as  from  a  human  document  subject  to 
the  same  canons  of  criticism  as  the  Koran  or  the 
Homeric  poems. 

As  S.  Thomas*  says,  faith  and  reason  cannot  be  in 
conflict.  We  should  therefore  courageously  apply 
our  criticism  to  the  study  of  religion,  confident  that 
whatever  is  destroyed  by  the  process  can  in  no  way 
belong  to  the  substance  of  our  religious  faith. 

Then  when  we  come  to  discuss  the  philosophical 
principles  for  which  the  Encyclical  rebukes  us,  we 
shall  make  it  clear  that  some  of  the  charges  are  simply 
false,  and  that  if  others  are  partly  true  they  are 
nowise  contrary  to  Catholic  tradition,  which,  be  it 
remembered,  reaches  back  further  than  the  Sumnia 
of  S.  Thomas,  let  alone  the  Council  of  Trent.  Chris- 
tianity had  lived  long  before  one  or  the  other,  and 
there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  uphold  an  in- 
terpretation of  Catholicism  older  than  either,  if  the 
circumstances  that  called  for  it  were  in  some  way 
analogous  to  those  of  the  modern  religious  world. 


*  Contra  Gentiles^  i.  7, 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  23 

(a)   T/ie  Literary  Criticism  of  the  Old  Testament 

The  Encyclical  marks  it  as  a  piece  of  cunning  astute- 
ness on  the  part  of  the  Modernists  that  they  disclaim 
to  be  philosophers  in  their  dealings  with  history, 
whereas  their  history  and  criticism  is  mere  philoso- 
phising from  beginning  to  end.  And  indeed  the 
critico-historical  system  which  it  fathers  on  them  is  a 
strictly  aprioristic  system  in  which  facts  are  deduced 
from  certain  principles  that  are  supposed  to  be  the  very 
pith  and  marrow  of  Modernism.  There  should  have 
been  some  attempt  to  show  that  such  is  actually  the 
method  adopted  and  practised  by  Modernists.  But 
the  EncycHcal  passes  over  the  point  Hghtly,  saying 
that  *'  this  is  evident  on  a  moment's  reflection  " — as 
though  what  we  think  could  be  ascertained  by  others 
on  mere  reflection.  Not  one  word  does  it  say  as  to  the 
results  reached  by  historical  criticism,  or  as  to  the 
way  in  which  they  have,  as  a  fact,  been  reached. 
Yet  this  is  the  very  foundation  of  the  inquiry  from 
which  we  should  begin.  What  the  Encyclical  has 
not  done,  let  us  try  to  do  briefly. 

The  common  and  traditional  notion  is  that  in  the 
Bible  we  possess  an  orderly  and  complete  history  of 
the  revelation  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  guaran- 
teed true  in  every  part  by  the  authority  of  God,  who, 
as  He  has  inspired  the  Bible,  may  be  called  the  prin- 
cipal historian ;   and    also   by  the  authority  of  the 


24      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

secondary  historians,  who  were  more  or  less  imme- 
diate witnesses  of  the  facts  they  record — such  as 
Moses  and  Joshua  for  the  Old  Testament,  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  and  John  for  the  New.  But  this  con- 
ception has  been  shaken  to  its  foundations  by  literary 
criticism  applied  to  the  historical  books  of  either 
Testament. 

This  began  with  the  Pentateuch,  commonly  as- 
,  cribed  to  Moses.  Since  the  sixteenth  century  various 
critics  have  noticed  reasons  for  denying  the  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch,  or  at  least  of  parts  of  it,  to 
Moses,  or  even  to  the  time  of  Moses.  It  was  also 
observed  that  with  the  exception  of  certain  parts, 
such  as  the  Deuteronomic  legislation,  which  ex- 
pressly claim  to  be  written  by  him,  there  is  nothing 
in  the  book  itself  that  points  to  his  authorship. 

But  the  full  solution  of  the  problem,  not  merely 
negative  but  positive,  belongs  to  the  nineteenth 
century  and  to  that  long  series  of  illustrious  critics 
who,  by  means  of  a  most  minute  analysis  applied  to 
the  Pentateuch  from  beginning  to  end,  and  after 
many  tests  and  hypotheses,  arrived  unanimously  at 
certain  fixed  conclusions.  The  upshot  of  their 
multitudinous  observations  may  be  reduced  to  the 
following  heads:  (i)  All  through  the  Pentateuch  we 
find  various  duplicates ;  that  is,  narratives  which 
record  the  same  fact,  or  laws  which  refer  to  the  same 
case ;  (2)  Notwithstanding   their  similarity  of  con- 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  25 

tent,  these  duplicates  differ  from  one  another  pal- 
pably, not  only  in  style  but  also  in  language,  as 
shown  by  the  constant  use  of  certain  words,  and  con- 
structions and  phrasings ;  (3)  But  they  also  differ 
in  content,  since  in  the  narratives  the  same  fact  is 
often  presented  with  different  and  mutually  exclu- 
sive circumstances,  or  with  the  same  circumstances  in 
an  inverted  order;  and  in  the  laws,  the  precepts 
touching  the  same  case  are  contradictory,  sometimes 
in  accidentals,  sometimes  even  in  substance  ;  (4)  But 
what  is  most  to  be  noted  is  that  the  same  matter 
is  differently  treated  not  only  from  an  historical 
but  from  a  religious  point  of  view,  whether  as  to 
the  manner  of  conceiving  God  and  His  attributes,  or 
as  to  that  of  conceiving  the  relations  between  God 
and  man. 

From  the  establishment  of  such  facts  we  must 
necessarily  infer  that  these  duplicates  cannot  be  the 
work  of  one  and  the  same  author,  but  demand 
different  writers,  not  only  on  account  of  their  re- 
semblances (for  it  is  not  likely  that  an  author  should 
repeat  himself  in  this  way),  but  on  account  of  their 
differences  (since  it  is  impossible  that  an  author 
should  contradict  himself  so  openly  at  such  brief 
intervals). 

Criticism,  however,  is  not  contented  with  this 
negative  result ;  it  seeks  to  discover  the  nature  and 
manner  of  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch.     It 


26      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

was  first  conjectured  that  the  dupHcates  were  separ- 
ate fragments  put  together  anyhow,  so  that  the 
Pentateuch  was  merely  a  bundle  of  scraps.  But 
later  it  became  evident  on  deeper  study  that  many 
of  these  fragments,  while  strikingly  different  in  kind 
(and  therefore  in  origin)  in  some  cases,  in  others 
presented  a  no  less  striking  resemblance,  which  made 
it  possible  to  arrange  two  or  more  series  of  parallel 
fragments,  each  of  which  is  characterised  by  certain 
linguistic,  historical,  juridical,  and  religious  peculi- 
arities. But  that  is  not  all.  It  was  found  that  each 
series  presented  a  well-ordered,  and  for  the  most 
part  perfect,  sequence.  And  all  this,  while  on  the 
one  hand  it  has  confirmed  the  former  conclusion  as 
to  the  diverse  origin  of  the  duplicates,  has,  on  the 
other,  furnished  bases  for  the  further  conclusion  that 
the  Pentateuch  is  composed  of  originally  separate 
documents,  closely  dove-tailed  together  by  one  or 
more  redactors  who  had  naturally  to  cut  up,  am- 
plify and  modify  the  said  documents  according  as 
the  unity  or  aim  of  their  work  demanded. 

Leaving  out  of  count  a  few  brief  fragments  and 
editorial  additions,  the  documents  which  form  the 
Pentateuch  are  four:  (i)  That  which  was  at  first 
styled  the  Elohistic  document,  because  it  calls  God 
Elohim  up  to  the  point  where  He  reveals  Himself  to 
Moses  as  Jahve.  But  now  it  is  known  as  the  Priestly 
Code  because,  after  a  brief  history  of  the  world  up 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  27 

to  the  death  of  Moses,  it  is  wholly  occupied  with 
legislation  concerning  worship  and  priesthood.  (2) 
Then  there  comes  the  "  second  Elohist  "  (now  sim- 
ply "the  Elohist  "),  so-called  because  he  prefers  to 
speak  of  God  as  Elohim  even  after  the  Mosaic  reve- 
lation. His  work  is  mainly  historical,  beginning 
with  the  call  of  Abraham  and  ending  with  the  death 
of  Moses,  but  also  embraces  some  legal  scraps, 
notably  that  known  as  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
(in  Exodus),  whose  theme  is  mainly  moral  and  re- 
ligious. (3)  The  Javistic  document,  which  is  purely 
historical,  beginning  from  the  creation  of  the  world, 
and  which  calls  God  Jahve  throughout.  (4)  The 
Deuteronomist,  so  called  because  coinciding  almost 
entirely  with  Deuteronomy.  Like  the  Priestly  Code 
it  is  principally  a  legal  document,  using  history 
merely  to  illustrate  and  enforce  the  observance  of 
the  law,  and  ascribing  the  said  history  and  law  to 
Moses  himself  shortly  before  his  death  in  the  plain 
of  Moab. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  follows  directly  that 
the  four  documents  which  form  the  Pentateuch  can 
neither  be  from  the  same  author  nor  from  the 
same  period,  since  such  different  religious  concep- 
tions, and  still  more  such  different  legal  enactments, 
cannot  belong  to  the  same  people  at  the  same  time : 
Distingue  tempora  et  conciliabis  jura. 

At  first  it  was  thought  that  the  four  documents 


28     The  Programme  of  Modernism 

might  be  chronologically  arranged  in  the  above 
order,  the  Priestly  Code  being  the  most  ancient  of 
all.  But  a  closer  criticism  has  dispelled  this  idea. 
A  careful  comparison  with  the  other  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  historic  and  prophetic,  shows  that 
the  legislation  of  the  Priestly  Code  was,  in  its  most 
salient  points,  unknown  in  Israel  before  the  Baby- 
lonian captivity  and  only  came  into  use  later. 
Whence  the  conclusion  that  the  document  embody- 
ing the  legislation  was  written  after  and  not  before 
the  captivity ;  and  since  we  are  told  that  Esdras 
imposed  on  the  new  religious  community  of  Jeru- 
salem a  law  which  he  had  brought  from  Babylon,  it 
IS  natural  to  conclude  that  this  was  just  the  Priestly 
Code.  Again,  the  epoch  of  the  Deuteronomist  can 
be  fixed  clearly  enough,  since  its  aim  is  to  enforce 
the  law  (unknown  to  antiquity)  of  only  one  sanctuary 
for  all  Israel,  and  since  it  has  been  identified  even 
by  S.  Jerome  and  other  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers 
with  the  Book  of  the  Law  found  in  the  reign  of 
Josiah,  and  therefore  composed  not  long  before,  and 
on  the  basis  of  which  that  pious  king,  having  de- 
stroyed all  the  other  sanctuaries  of  Palestine,  decreed 
that  Solomon's  temple  in  Jerusalem  should  be  the 
only  lawful  sanctuary  for  the  Jews.  The  Elohist  and 
Jahvist  reach  back  to  an  earlier  epoch,  since  they  con- 
tain sacred  ordinances  which  we  find  in  use  before  the 
time  of  Josiah,  and  even  from  the  most  primitive  times. 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  29 

Those  conclusions  as  to  the  origin  of  the  several 
documents  are  strikingly  confirmed  by  comparison 
with  the  prophetic  writings.  For  we  find  that  the 
Elohist  and  Jahvist  documents  agree  in  language 
and  thought  with  the  oldest  prophets,  like  Amos 
and  Hosea;  the  Deuteronomist  with  Jeremiah,  who 
was  contemporary  with  Josiah's  reform;  the  Priestly 
Code  with  Ezekiel,  who  of  all  the  prophets  was 
most  interested  in  the  restoration  of  worship  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Chaldeans. 

When  we  apply  the  same  criticism  to  the  other 
historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  we  see  plainly 
that  they  are  works  of  compilation  and  have  not 
been  written  offhand.  As  for  the  Book  of  Joshua  it 
is  a  continuation  of  the  same  documents  out  of 
which  the  Pentateuch  is  woven — a  further  proof 
that  none  of  them  can  have  been  the  work  of  Moses. 
If  the  sources  of  Judges  and  Kings  are  not  the  same 
as  those  of  the  Pentateuch,  they  derive  from  the 
same  school  of  writers  and  have  undergone  a  like 
process  of  editing.  The  Book  of  Chronicles,  though 
a  more  recent  compilation  of  more  recent  materials, 
is  very  important  for  our  contention,  since  by  using 
large  and  unacknowledged  extracts  from  the  Book 
of  Kings  it  shows  beyond  doubt  that  the  Jewish 
mode  of  compiling  history  was  just  what  criticism 
infers  and  describes. 

All  this  labour  of  critical  construction  is  the  work 


30     The  Programme  of  Modernism 

not  of  Modernists  but  of  eminent  scientists  of  va- 
rious nationalities  and  religions.  Unless  we  are  pre- 
pared to  say  that  they  are — what  the  Encyclical 
calls  us  Catholic  critics — an  international  association 
of  blusterers  and  impostors,  their  unanimous  judg- 
ment must  weigh  even  with  those  least  versed  in 
the  difficult  art  of  criticism.  *'  Yes ;  but  they  are 
rationalists."  What  then?  Their  conclusions  are 
not  founded  on  their  rationalism  but  on  their  rea- 
sons, on  their  vast  knowledge,  above  all,  on  their 
conscientious  investigation  of  texts  and  facts.  More- 
over, many  of  them  are  at  one  with  us  in  their 
reverence  for  the  divine  authority  of  the  Bible  and 
in  their  recognition  of  Christ  as  their  Saviour.  Also 
those  few  Catholics  who  have  devoted  their  lives 
and  labours  to  these  extensive  and  difficult  studies 
have,  often  in  spite  of  themselves,  been  plainly  con- 
vinced of  the  legitimacy  of  biblical  criticism.  It  is 
true  that  the  Papal  Commission,  *'  De  re  biblica,"  in 
its  famous  answer  of  June  27,  1906,  has  solemnly 
declared  that  all  the  arguments  amassed  by  criticism 
against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  are 
nothing  worth;  but  such  a  decree  has  not,  and  does 
not  pretend  to  have,  any  scientific  value.*  It  is 
well  known  that  the  more  learned  consultors  of  the 


*  By  a  recent  Moiu  Proprio  Pius  X.  declares  the  past  and  future 
decisions  of  that  Commission  to  have  the  conscience-binding  force  of 
congregational  decrees,  i.  <?.,  not  scientific  but  juridical  authority. 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  31 

Commission,  and  those  best  known  to  tlie  scientific 
world  by  their  pubHcations,  all  more  or  less  accept 
the  verdict  of  criticism.  As  for  the  theological  con- 
suitors,  who  as  usual  cleave  tenaciously  to  traditional 
opinions,  one  might  say  of  each  of  them  what  Dr. 
Charles  Briggs,  the  illustrious  critic  and  philologist, 
well  known  for  his  Catholic  tendencies,  said  of  one 
of  the  secretaries  of  the  Commission :  "  His  treat- 
ment of  the  Bible  is  so  unscientific,  and  his  use  of 
the  Hebrew  tongue  exhibits  such  depths  of  igno- 
rance that  no  expert  could  allow  his  right  to  any 
sort  of  opinion  in  the  matter  of  Hebrew  scholar- 
ship, and  his  very  name  is  at  once  enough  to  dis- 
credit the  answer  of  the  Commission."*  The  philo- 
logical and  critical  competence  of  the  cardinals  who 
had  the  decisive  vote  is  on  the  same  level;  nor  does 
their  preoccupation  with  other  affairs  fit  them  to 
destroy  with  a  hasty  word  the  accumulated  labours 
of  so  many  generations  of  critics.  It  is  as  though 
they  had  been  called  on  to  decide  by  vote  some  in- 
tricate astronomical  problem,  as  their  predecessors 
were  in  the  case  of  Galileo.  It  was  quite  natural 
that  in  order  to  get  themselves  out  of  their  em- 
barrassment they  should  hold  fast  to  the  argument 
from  tradition.  But  the  historical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  from  which  they  would  prove  such 


*  The  Papal  Cortwiission  and  ike  Pentateuch.    London :  Longmans, 
1900. 


32      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

a  continuous  tradition  from  the  time  of  Moses,  have 
been  submitted,  as  already  said,  to  the  same  criti- 
cism as  the  Pentateuch  itself,  and  when  even  the 
oldest  of  them  speak  of  "  the  Law  "  they  mean  the 
Deuteronomic  Law.  The  ascription  of  the  entire 
Pentateuch  to  Moses  occurs  explicitly  for  the  first 
time  in  the  Book  of  Chronicles,  written  nearly  a 
thousand  years  after  Moses — an  interval  far  too 
great  to  allow  the  tradition  any  historical  value. 

But  while  proclaiming  aloud  the  insufficiency  of 
the  critical  arguments,  the  Commission  itself  betrays 
a  deep  sense  of  their  forcibleness.  It  is  due  to  this 
sense  that  it  admits  that  Moses  may  have  employed 
secretaries  whose  writings  he  himself  supervised  and 
published.  This  is  plainly  a  recognition  of  the  com- 
posite character  of  the  Pentateuch,  a  concession 
which  cannot  be  defended  in  the  form  in  which  it  is 
presented,  and  is,  moreover,  unequal  to  its  purpose. 
For  the  diverse  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  differ  not 
only  in  form,  so  as  to  demand  different  writers,  but 
also  in  content,  so  as  to  demand  differently-instructed 
minds  writing  independently  of  one  another  and  of 
any  one  directing  editor.  Also,  to  allow  that  in  the 
course  of  time  glosses  and  modifications  have  been 
introduced  into  the  Pentateuch  is  to  recognise  that 
the  critics  are  right  when  they  say  that  certain 
passages  bear  on  their  faces  the  imprint  of  an  age 
later  than   Moses.     Yet  here  again  the  concession 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  33 

is  not  enough  to  save  the  Mosaic  authorship,  since 
many  of  the  said  passages  bear  no  trace  of  being 
later  than  the  main  work,  and  harmonise  perfectly 
with  the  general  context,  so  that  no  calm  and 
impartial  critic  could  regard  them  as  glosses. 

In  the  face  of  such  results  of  biblical  criticism 
founded  on  undeniable  facts,  and  allowed  by  all 
serious  students  who  refuse  to  be  biassed  by  pre- 
judices inherited  from  the  past,  we  Modernists  can- 
not in  conscience  withdraw  ourselves  from  the  light 
of  truth  or  put  ourselves  in  harsh  opposition  to 
science  and  its  leaders. 

Rather,  while  on  the  one  hand  we  honestly  accept 
the  assured  results  of  criticism,  we  strive  on  the  other 
so  to  modify  our  theology  that  criticism  may  not 
come  in  conflict  with  our  faith. 

Above  all  we  have  seen  the  necessity  of  abandon- 
ing the  illusion  that  we  possess  in  the  Bible  an  or- 
derly and  complete  history  of  the  religion  of  Israel. 
The  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
compilations  of  documents  belonging  to  different 
periods,  each  of  which  reflects  back  to  the  time 
of  Moses  or  thereabouts  the  customs  and  institu- 
tions prevailing  in  its  own  day.  Nevertheless  they 
give  us  materials  from  which  criticism  can  recon- 
struct the  history  of  Israel,  though  they  themselves 
do  not  reconstruct  it  for  us. 

Must  we  then  say  that  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 


34      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

tament  recount  what  is  false  ?  It  is  just  here  that 
we  have  to  face  the  most  dehcate  problem  of  recon- 
ciling faith  and  science  without  injury  to  the  truth. 
We  hold  that  no  blame  of  untruthfulness  can  attach 
to  the  sacred  authors.  In  point  of  fact  "  false  "  is  a 
relative  term.  That  a  statement  is  false  means  not 
only  that  it  is  untrue  to  reality  but  that  its  author 
knows  its  untruth  or  wishes  to  impose  it  as  true. 
Else  we  should  have  to  say  that  Homer,  Dante, 
Manzoni,  and  a  host  of  writers  were  untruthful. 
Truth  and  falsehood  must  be  estimated  by  the  na- 
ture of  the  book  and  by  the  literary  category  to 
which  it  belongs.  History,  in  the  strict  sense  of 
the  word  looks  to  the  exact  reproduction  of  facts, 
whereas  poetry  and  all  other  sorts  of  creative  litera- 
ture look  to  a  different  order  of  truth  transcending 
the  brute  reality  of  facts.  And  these  two  kinds  of 
literature  are  not  divided  by  a  deep  and  wide  gulf. 
Midway  between  is  to  be  found  every  degree  of 
mixture  of  fact  and  imagination.  There  is  also  a 
sort  of  history  which  leaves  more  or  less  room  for 
imaginary  descriptions,  speeches,  and  conversations. 
And  this  is  the  general  manner  of  classical  historians 
like  Herodotus,  Xenophon,  Livy,  and  Tacitus,  who 
are  not  therefore  to  be  charged  with  untruthfulness. 
And  so  we  ought  not  to  wonder  if  orientals,  natur- 
ally more  enthusiastic  and  imaginative,  mingle  in- 
vention with  history  somewhat  more  liberally.     We 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  35 

may  not  then  settle  the  character  of  a  book,  even 
when  written  in  narrative  form,  a  priori^  but  only 
after  a  minute  and  careful  examination.  From 
such  an  examination  it  is  evident  that  the  nar- 
rative books  of  the  Old  Testament,  compiled  as 
they  are  with  considerable  freedom  from  differ- 
ent sources  wherein  the  same  facts  are  differently 
presented,  are  not  histories  in  the  strict  and  mod- 
ern sense  of  the  term.  They  may  perhaps  be  called 
sacred  histories,  that  is,  histories  compiled  for  and 
adapted  to  the  development  of  religious  life  and 
feeling.  Nor  should  every  sort  of  invention  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  idea  of  religious  history  for  stories 
partly  or  wholly  imaginary  are  often  more  edifying 
than  rigorously-verified  facts,  and  we  rightly  set 
great  store  by  the  old-world  legends  of  the  saints 
and  draw  great  profit  from  them,  though  we  know 
that  they  contain  much  that  derives  only  from  the 
devout  imagination  of  the  writer.  In  the  Bible  itself 
we  have  a  palpable  example  of  this  harmless  sort  of 
fiction  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  which  pretends  to 
be  the  utterance  of  Solomon,  whereas  all  the  world 
knows  now  that  it  was  written  in  Greek  shortly  be- 
fore the  Christian  era.  But  the  theologians  have 
been  so  long  accustomed  to  use  the  Bible  as  a  basis 
for  arguments  and  strict  logical  demonstrations  that 
they  necessarily  imagine  it  must  have  been  written 
to  serve  this  dialectical  purpose,  which  it  could  not 


36      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

do  were  it  not  free  from  every  element  of  fiction. 
Yet  this  is  mere  prejudice.  Examined  carefully  the 
historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  do  not  make 
the  least  pretence  to  furnish  intellectual  arguments, 
but  simply  to  purify  the  hearts  of  their  readers. 
Nor  are  the  legal  portions  an  exception.  As  the 
author  of  Wisdom  could  ascribe  his  book  to  Solo- 
mon, because  Solomon  was  possibly  the  inventor 
and  most  illustrious  representative  of  the  sapiential 
literature,  so  other  authors  could  attribute  various 
and  successive  legal  codes  to  Moses  because  the 
Thorah — that  is,  the  law-giving  power  in  Israel — de- 
rived from  Moses.  The  authority  of  a  law,  more- 
over, did  not  rest  on  its  being  written  by  Moses  but 
on  its  antiquity  or  some  such  reason.  So  also 
Josiah,  when  he  undertook  a  reformation  on  the 
basis  of  the  Deuteronomic  law,  did  not  rest  it  on 
the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  law  but  on  the  authority  of 
the  prophets  then  living,  and  on  the  fact  that  the 
system  of  many  sanctuaries  which  it  condemned  had 
brought  down  upon  Israel  the  divine  chastisement 
therein  threatened. 

From  all  this  it  is  plain  in  what  sense  we  understand 
and  admit  that  theory  which  justifies  biblical  errors 
as  serving  the  interests  of  the  spiritual  life — a  theory 
which  the  Encyclical  reproaches  us  with.  We  do 
not  allow  that  there  are,  strictly  speaking,  any  errors 
in  the  Bible,  still  less  any  lies — not  even  lies  of  edifi- 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  37 

cation — and  therefore  we  have  no  need  to  excuse 
them  by  the  said  theory.  But  the  interests  of  relig- 
ious life  can  explain  the  use  of  certain  literary  arti- 
fices in  the  Bible  which  do  not  correspond  to  the 
usages  and  needs  of  our  day.  It  is  owing  just  to 
these  artifices  and  to  the  peculiar  religious  needs  of 
the  people  for  whom  each  of  these  books  was  writ- 
ten, that  we  so  often  fail  to  find  what  we  should 
expect  in  the  Bible  and  find  what  we  should  not 
expect. 

In  the  second  place,  the  results  of  criticism  have 
forced  us  to  abandon  the  old  idea  of  biblical  inspira- 
tion. Up  to  recent  times  inspiration  was  explained 
as  a  verbal  dictation  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  in 
the  latter  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  schol- 
astics themselves  recognised  that  even  a  superficial 
examination  of  the  Bible  forbade  the  idea  that  the 
sacred  writer  was  merely  and  wholly  a  passive 
instrument,  and  while  they  reserved  to  God  the 
authorship  of  each  and  every  idea  contained  in  the 
book,  they  allowed  that  the  verbal  expression  of 
those  ideas  might  (in  spite  of  the  unanimous  tradi- 
tion to  the  contrary)  be  ascribed  to  the  wit  of  man. 
But  the  results  of  criticism  force  us  much  further. 
As  the  words  are  not  directly  from  God,  so  neither 
are  the  ideas,  since  they  often  clash  with  one  another. 
The  whole  book,  words  and  ideas  alike,  is  the  work 
of  man  without  thereby  ceasing  to  be  wholly,  as  to 


38      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

both  words  and  ideas — a  distinction  we  can  set  aside 
as  unknown  to  antiquity — the  work  of  God.  In- 
spiration can  no  longer  be  considered  as  the  mechan- 
ical transmission  of  words  or  ideas  from  God  to 
man,  but  as  a  vital  conceiving  of  word  and  idea 
together  on  the  part  of  man's  spirit  united  in  a 
special  and  supernatural  manner  to  God,  who  thus 
in  man,  and  by  means  of  man,  has  raised  the 
people  of  Israel  to  ever  higher  stages  of  religious 
development. 

Hence  it  is  easy  to  see  how  our  notion  of  inspira- 
tion differs  from  that  which  the  Encyclical  ascribes 
to  us.  We  do  not  consider  inspiration  to  be  simply 
the  manifestation  which  every  believer,  by  a  sort  of 
internal  necessity,  is  compelled  to  make  of  his  faith. 
We  see  in  it  a  special  work  of  God,  nay  more,  the 
realisation  of  a  divine  and  stupendous  plan  for  the 
salvation  of  mankind.  That  there  are  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures  mistakes  not  only  of  language  and  style 
but  also  of  matter,  is  a  fact  that  is  given  by  observa- 
tion and  critical  analysis.  We  have  not  invented 
this  fact,  but  our  mode  of  conceiving  inspiration  en- 
ables us  to  explain  it.  If  God  Himself  had  found 
the  words  and  ideas,  and  had  thus  transmitted  them 
mechanically  to  the  sacred  writers.  He  would  surely 
have  sought  out  those  best  suited  to  the  capacity  of 
all  readers  of  all  times ;  He  would  not  have  needed 
to  repeat  Himself  in  various  and  often  contradictory 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  39 

ways.  But  since  words  and  ideas  are  the  work  of 
man  they  are  naturally  subject  to  the  imperfections 
of  man,  whence  these  repetitions  and  discords.  In- 
spiration was  not  given  to  destroy  such  religiously- 
irrelevant  imperfections,  but  that  notwithstanding 
its  imperfections  the  work  of  man  should  contribute 
each  time  a  little  more  to  the  fulfilment  of  the 
divine  plan  of  redemption. 

Finally,  criticism  forces  us  to  alter  our  notion,  not 
only  of  inspiration  but  of  revelation — not  indeed 
substantially,  for  we  hold  that  revelation  is  God's 
message  to  man,  but  as  to  the  manner  in  which  that 
message  is  transmitted  to  man.  The  Encyclical  in- 
sists above  all  things  on  the  external  character  of 
revelation.  Nor  do  we  ourselves  deny  that  the 
transmission  of  the  divine  message  to  the  faithful  at 
large  demands  an  external  instrument,  that  is  to 
say,  the  prophet  or  divine  messenger  who  acts  as 
intermediary  between  God  and  the  community. 
But  the  question  is  as  to  how,  in  the  first  instance, 
the  message  is  transmitted  to  the  prophet  or  mes- 
senger. The  biblical  narratives  present  this  trans- 
mission as  external  in  form,  as  words  directed  to  the 
bodily  ear,  or  as  visions  beheld  with  the  bodily  eye. 
But  does  this  pretend  to  be  literal  fact  and  not 
rather  a  literary  device?  The  latter  supposition, 
after  all  we  have  said  about  the  veracity  of  sacred 
history,  is  certainly  not  impossible;  nay,  it  seems 


40     The  Programme  of  Modernism 

the  more  probable  if  we  consider  that  the  same 
theophany  {e.  g.,  that  to  Moses  on  Mount  Sinai)  has 
been  quite  differently  described  in  different  docu- 
ments. It  has  been  noticed  that,  generally  speaking, 
the  Jahvist  gives  objective  reality  to  divine  appari- 
tions, that  the  Elohist  describes  them  as  visions 
during  sleep,  and  that  the  Priestly  Code  reduces  the 
sense-elements  simply  to  that  of  the  divine  word — 
"  The  Lord  said,"  etc.  May  it  not  be  that  these 
various  presentments,  progressively  dematerialised, 
stand  for  a  fact  of  the  purely  spiritual  order? 

At  all  events  it  is  impossible  to  gather  exactly  from 
the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  what  the 
nature  of  revelation  really  was  ;  and  we  should  rather 
turn  to  the  prophetic  books,  which  offer  a  more  direct 
and  safer  guidance.  Now  if  at  times  the  prophets 
speak  of  visions,  for  the  most  part  they  do  not  allude 
to  them  and  rather  conceive  the  voice  of  God  as  an 
inward  and  irresistible  compulsion.  It  is  hard  to  see 
why  such  importance  should  be  attached  by  the 
Encyclical  to  the  externality  of  revelation  as  though 
it  alone  could  make  us  certain  that  God  had  spoken 
to  man,  whereas  everyone  knows  that  God  cannot  be 
the  direct  object  of  external  sensation,  nor  can  He 
lack  means  to  reveal  Himself  directly  and  unmistak- 
ably to  the  soul  of  His  prophet.  Sacred  history  pre- 
sents revelation  to  us  not  as  external,  but  as  given 
once  and  for  all  by  means  of  one  man — Moses,  in  such 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  41 

wise  that  the  prophets  did  no  more  than  explain  and 
inculcate  the  Mosaic  revelation.  But  here  again 
criticism  has  forced  us  to  change  our  ideas.  It  has 
taught  us  that  the  various  institutions  and  legisla- 
tions have  succeeded  one  another  in  the  course  of 
long  ages,  each  changing  and  improving  on  the  one 
before. 

The  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  afford  a 
vista  of  an  earlier  epoch  in  which  the  children  of 
Israel  were  on  the  same  religious  level  as  the  other 
nations.  At  the  time  of  each  writer  that  level  has 
been  left  behind, but  not  entirely;  and  it  is  plain  that 
Israel  still  needs  a  continual  providence  on  God's  part 
to  guard  against  a  relapse  into  idolatry  and  unclean- 
ness.  The  danger  of  such  a  relapse  is  felt  to  be  more 
or  less  acute  in  the  different  historical  books.  In 
this  great  progressive  work  of  the  religious  reform  and 
elevation  of  Israel  God  has  used  the  instrumentality 
not  only  of  Moses,  but  also  of  his  successors,  the 
prophets,  many  of  whose  names,  not  to  say  writings, 
are  lost  to  us.  God's  spirit  is  not  tied  to  a  single 
epoch  or  to  a  particular  little  group  of  persons,  but  is 
spread  abroad  over  the  ages  and  generations  of 
humanity,  ever  furthering  the  perfection  of  his  plan 
of  redemption. 

A  last,  but  not  least  important,  remark  as  to 
revelation.  Its  object  has  never  been  so  much  an 
abstract  knowledge  of   the  Divinity,  as  a  practical 


42      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

instruction  concerning  the  worship  of  God  and  the 
conforming  of  our  lives  to  the  supreme  rule  of  his 
will.  The  prophets  have  given  such  guidance  to 
kings  and  peoples  in  special  emergencies ;  the  Penta- 
teuch deals  with  general  cases ;  and  the  historical 
books  recount  the  good  and  the  evil  that  has  befallen 
Israel  according  as  the  law  has  been  observed  or 
transgressed. 

{d)  Criticism  mtd  the  New  Testament 

The  Gospels  are  for  Christianity  what  the  Penta- 
teuch IS  for  Israel.  In  the  light  of  criticism  there 
are  also  certain  analogies  between  these  the  two 
most  interesting  parts  of  the  Bible.  As  the  origins 
of  the  religion  of  Israel  are  differently  presented  in 
the  four  documents  woven  into  the  Pentateuch,  so 
are  the  origins  of  Christianity  by  the  four  Gospels, 
which  however  have  been  kept  separate  by  the 
Church,  and  have  not  been  woven  into  such  a 
diatessaron  as  was  used  for  a  long  time  in  the 
ancient  Church  of  Syria. 

And  if  we  adhere  to  the  letter,  the  differences 
between  the  Gospels  in  very  many  cases  amount  to 
real  and  unmistakable  contradictions.  Of  these  the 
Encyclical  will  hear  nothing  and,  against  the  judg- 
ments of  criticism,  appeals  with  scorn  to  the  in- 
numerable   series    of    Doctors    and    Fathers   who, 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  43 

though  far  in  a  way  more  holy  and  learned  than  the 
Modernists,  have  found  no  such  defects  in  the  sacred 
writings.  But  in  point  of  fact  even  the  said  Doctors, 
in  reading  and  comparing  the  Gospels,  have  often 
noted  glaring  contradictions,  which  they  have  piously 
striven  to  explain  away  by  putting  the  blame  on  a 
vitiated  codex,  or  on  an  incompetent  translator,  or 
on  the  misapprehension  of  the  reader.  But  has  their 
ingenuity  in  establishing  a  perfect  harmony  between 
the  Gospels  ever  really  been  successful?  That  is 
the  question.  The  endless  series  of  new  Gospel 
harmonies  and  new  attempts  at  conciliation  seems  to 
say.  No.  To  take  an  example:  How  many  explan- 
ations have  been,  and  are  daily,  suggested  to  recon- 
cile the  first  three  Gospels  with  the  fourth  as  to  the 
date  of  the  Last  Supper  and  the  death  of  Christ? 
This  means  that  a  solution  of  the  contradiction  clear 
enough  to  satisfy  everyone  cannot  be  found  because 
it  does  not  exist.  But  were  it  a  question  of 
this  and  a  few  other  rare  cases  it  would  matter 
little.  The  truth  is,  however,  that  there  is  hardly 
a  single  portion  of  any  consequence  which  is  not 
marked  by  serious  and  insuperable  divergences  on 
the  part  of  the  first  three  Evangelists. 

What  the  Encyclical  says  is  partly  true :  there  are 
divergences  in  the  Gospels  which  were  wholly  un- 
noticed in  past  times ;  and  therefore  the  Biblical 
Commission  (in  its  decree.  May  29,  1907 — De  Aiictore 


44      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

et  veritate  historica  quarti  Evangelii)  appeals  in  vain 
to  the  solution  given  in  the  past  by  the  Fathers  and 
by  Catholic  exegetes  to  difficulties  suggested  by  a 
comparison  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  with  the  synoptics. 
They  could  not  solve  difficulties  of  which  they  were 
unaware.  Criticism  has  done  for  the  Gospels  what 
it  has  done  for  the  Pentateuch.  It  has  submitted 
each  of  them  to  a  systematic  examination  and 
brought  out  its  peculiar  characteristics,  and  has  thus 
been  able  to  determine  not  only  its  particular  differ- 
ences from  the  other  Gospels,  but  those  general 
differences  of  scope  and  character  on  which  these 
particular  differences  depend.  By  way  of  explana- 
tion let  us  take  an  example.  It  is  noticeable  that  in 
the  Gospel  of  S.  Mark  the  life  of  Jesus  follows  an 
orderly  and  progressive  development.  At  first  His 
divine  sonship  is  a  secret  revealed  to  Him  alone  by 
the  Father  at  His  baptism.  Later,  He  works  such 
miracles  as  only  the  Son  of  God  could  work,  but  de- 
liberately refrains  from  claiming  that  title;  forbids 
the  devils  to  call  Him  by  it;  forbids  those  whom  He 
cures  to  publish  the  miracle.  The  first  to  infer  His 
Messiahship  from  His  works  is  Simon  Peter,  who 
confesses  his  faith  at  Csesarea.  From  that  time 
forth  Jesus  often  speaks  of  His  Christhood  and  of 
the  passion  which  it  necessarily  involves,  but  always 
in  secret  and  only  to  His  disciples.  The  crowd 
acknowledge  and  proclaim  Him  to  be  the  Messiah 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  45 

for  the  first  time  at  His  solemn  entrance  into  Jerusa- 
lem, and  Jesus  Himself  first  declares  it  openly  in  His 
trial  before  the  Sanhedrin.  Such  is  the  trend  of  the 
second  and  oldest  Gospel. 

In  Matthew  and  Luke,  on  the  contrary,  Jesus  is 
presented  to  the  public  as  the  Son  of  God  from  the 
very  beginning,  at  His  baptism;  and  He  Himself  from 
the  first — in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matthew) 
and  in  the  opening  discourse  at  Nazareth  (Luke) — 
comes  forward  publicly  as  the  supreme  lawgiver,  the 
Lord,  the  Universal  Judge,  the  Christ  or  the  Anointed 
of  God  ;  and  accordingly,  long  before  the  confession 
of  Peter,  His  disciples  call  Him  the  Lord  and  the 
Son  of  God.  And  yet  in  spite  of  this,  these  two 
Evangelists  retain  the  injunctions  to  the  healed  and 
to  the  devils  not  to  declare  Him,  as  well  as  the  con- 
fession of  Peter,  to  which  S.  Matthew  attaches  a 
particular  importance.  Also,  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
Hke  Matthew  and  Luke,  makes  John  proclaim  Jesus 
publicly  to  be  the  Son  of  God  at  His  baptism  and 
makes  the  disciples  acknowledge  Him  as  such  from 
the  first.  But  it  goes  further  than  the  other  two. 
Not  only  does  it  retain  no  trace  of  the  scheme  fol- 
lowed by  S.  Mark,  no  trace  of  Jesus'  injunctions  to 
silence,  or  even  of  the  confession  of  S.  Peter,  but 
besides  all  this  it  represents  Jesus  as,  from  the  first, 
speaking  of  nothing  but  Himself,  declaring  His  di- 
vine prerogatives  and  defending  them    against   the 


46      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

attacks  of  the  Jews — His  heavenly  origin,  His  prior- 
ity to  the  world,  His  unity  with  the  Father,  His  co- 
operation in  the  work  of  creation  and  revelation, 
etc.,— ideas,  not  one  of  which  is  to  be  met  with 
in  the  other  Gospels  and  which  the  Evangelist  has 
first  set  forth  in  his  prologue  and  has,  in  part,  put 
into  the  mouth  of  John  the  Baptist. 

Corresponding  to  this  way  of  conceiving  Jesus* 
revelation  of  His  divine  sonship,  is  the  way  in  which 
his  story  is  told  so  as  to  illustrate  that  sonship. 
Mark  deprives  the  humanity  of  Jesus  of  none  of  its 
traits.  He  ascribes  to  Him  pity,  tenderness,  anger, 
impatience,  fear,  weariness,  and  even  temptation ;  a 
limited  power,  as  when  at  Capernaum  He  cured 
many  but  not  all  of  the  sick  who  were  brought  to 
Him,  or  as  when  at  Nazareth  He  could  work  no 
miracles  at  all ;  a  limited  knowledge,  as  when  He 
had  to  ask  for  information,  or  when  He  owned  that 
He  did  not  know  when  the  end  of  the  world  would 
be.  Matthew  and  Luke  are  careful  to  remove  from 
their  portrait  of  Jesus  any  features  that  seem  to 
derogate  from  His  divine  sonship,  especially  ignor- 
ance or  powerlessness.  Notice  how  Matthew  trans- 
forms the  answer  given  by  Jesus,  in  Mark,  to  the 
young  man  who  called  Him  **  Good  Master."  In 
Mark  He  answers:  "Why  callest  thou  me  good? 
there  is  none  good  but  God  alone."  In  Matthew 
He  must  not  seem  to  repudiate  His  prerogative  of 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  47 

divine  goodness,  and  so  He  is  made  to  answer: 
"  Why  doest  thou  ask  me  about  goodness  ?  There  is 
but  one  who  is  good."  Luke  omits  this  episode 
altogether.  But  the  human  traits  are  not  entirely 
obliterated  in  Matthew  and  Luke.  Above  all,  the 
story  of  the  temptation  remains,  and  the  entirely 
human  episode  of  the  agony  in  the  garden.  But  in 
S.  John,  Jesus  persistently  thinks,  speaks,  and  acts 
as  one  united  to  the  Father;  and  therefore  no 
human  affection  or  weakness  is  ascribed  to  Him, 
neither  the  temptation  in  the  desert,  nor  the  moral 
struggle  and  uncertainty  of  Gethsemane,  where,  on 
the  contrary,  He  goes  forth,  with  full  knowledge  of 
what  is  coming,  to  meet  His  enemies  and  lays  them 
low  by  the  mere  sound  of  His  voice.  Many  of  the 
divergences  between  the  Evangelists  are  thus  ex- 
plained by  this  less  or  more  accentuated  tendency 
to  exalt  the  divinity  of  Christ  at  the  expense  of  His 
humanity. 

But  criticism  is  not  satisfied  with  exploring  the 
special  character  of  each  Gospel  and  of  its  discrep- 
ancy from  the  others.  It  has  taken  care  to  examine 
their  resemblances  and  their  mutual  relations  of 
origin  and  dependence.  This  had  been  done  already 
for  the  Pentateuchal  documents ;  but  as  applied  to 
the  Gospels  the  method  has  raised  much  more 
serious  problems  and  yielded  much  more  important 
results. 


48      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

It  had  been  long  noticed,  indeed  it  is  evident  at  a 
glance,  that  the  first  three  Gospels  are  strikingly 
alike — a  fact  which  earns  them  their  name  of 
"synoptic."  Above  all  they  agree  in  their  matter, 
of  which  one  third  is  common  to  all  three,  and  a 
considerable,  though  smaller,  portion  is  common  to 
two— Matthew  and  Luke.  Considering  the  varied 
activity  of  Jesus  and  the  range  of  His  teaching  this 
fact  is  surely  significant. 

But  what  is  still  more  so  is  that  the  resemblance 
extends  to  the  minutest  particularity  of  the  letter, 
not  only  in  the  discourses  (which  is  strange  enough, 
since  Jesus  spoke  in  Aramaic  and  not  in  Greek,  and 
therefore  the  literal  agreement  of  the  translations 
would  be  most  miraculous  if  a  mere  coincidence)  but 
also  in  the  narratives.  And  this  is  all  the  more  mar- 
vellous that  alongside  of  these  exact  resemblances 
there  are  found  striking  contradictions,  and  that  what 
is  common  to  all  is  mingled  with  what  is  peculiar  to 
one.  This  phenomenon  can  evidently  be  explained 
only  by  the  origin  of  the  synoptics  and  their  method 
of  compilation.  What  then  was  this  method  ?  For 
over  a  century  the  problem  has  exercised  the  wits  of 
the  learned ;  but  at  last  we  can  say  that  the  synoptic 
question  has  received  a  unanimous  and  decisive 
solution  in  the  hypothesis  of  a  two-fold  source. 
According  to  this  hypothesis,  the  first  source  which 
explains  the  resemblance  common  to  all  three  is  S. 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  49 

Mark,  which  has  served  as  a  basis  for  the  other  two. 
The  chief  reasons  for  this  conclusion  are  the  follow- 
ing: (i)  With  a  very  few  exceptions  all  the  material 
of  Mark  is  found  in  the  other  two,  while  a  great  many 
parts  found  in  Matthew  and  Luke  are  absent  from 
Mark.  If  Mark  was  the  common  source  of  the  other 
two,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  it  might  have  been 
amplified  by  other  sources,  oral  or  written.  But  on 
the  contrary  it  is  hard  to  understand  how  an  ampler 
source,  like  Matthew,  could  have  been  contracted 
into  a  smaller  Gospel  like  Mark.  We  should  have  to 
say,  with  S.  Augustine,  that  Mark  wanted  to  make 
a  compendium  of  the  other  two,  or  of  one  of  them. 
But  that  is  not  possible,  for  on  the  one  hand  he 
leaves  out  facts  of  supreme  importance,  and  on  the 
other  he  dwells  at  greater  length  than  they  on 
matters  of  no  doctrinal  value.  (2)  The  second 
reason  is  the  order  followed  by  the  synoptics,  some- 
times the  same,  sometimes  different.  But  Matthew 
and  Luke  never  agree  when  they  follow  an  order 
different  from  Mark ;  while  Mark  sometimes  agrees 
with  Matthew  against  Luke,  sometimes  with  Luke 
against  Matthew.  This  shows  that  Mark  follows  a 
common  order  from  which  one  or  other  of  his  com- 
panions sometimes  diverges.  But  even  in  so  diverg- 
ing they  often  show  traces  of  their  common  source. 
For  example,  Matthew  puts  the  cure  of  the  leper 
after  the  Sermon   on  the   Mount  when  Jesus  was 


50      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

coming  down  with  the  crowd.  But  the  word  of 
Jesus,  "  See  thou  tell  no  man,"  supposes  that  the 
event  was  private,  as  it  is  represented  in  Mark. 
Luke  represents  the  relatives  of  Jesus  coming  to 
Him  after  His  sermon  of  parables  held  openly  in 
the  midst  of  the  crowd.  But  the  message  brought 
to  Jesus,  "  Thy  mother  and  thy  brethren  stand 
without^  and  would  see  thee,"  supposes  that  the 
incident  happened  in  a  house  just  as  Mark  repre- 
sents it  to  have  happened.  (3)  What  is  true  of  the 
arrangement  of  the  facts  is  equally  true  of  their 
presentment.  The  synoptics  differ  frequently  in  ex- 
plaining the  circumstances  accompanying  the  prin- 
cipal fact.  But  here  again  Mark  usually  agrees  with 
one  of  the  other  two,  while  these  never  agree  against 
Mark — if  we  except  a  few  details,  chiefly  of  lan- 
guage, whose  explanation  can  only  be  found  in  the 
composition  of  the  synoptics.  (4)  Lastly,  the  lan- 
guage of  Mark  abounds  in  Hebraisms,  which  dis- 
appear to  some  extent  in  Matthew  and  Luke.  Now 
it  is  not  possible  that  Mark  should  have  wantonly 
adulterated  the  Greek  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  while 
it  is  quite  understandable  that  the  other  two  should 
have  tried  to  correct  and  purify  the  language  of  the 
source  from  which  they  drew. 

A  second  source  has  been  sought  for  the  parts 
common  only  to  Matthew  and  Luke  and  consisting 
mostly  in  discourses  of  our  Lord.     This  time  it  was 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  51 

necessary  to  search  outside  the  synoptics  and  to 
suppose  a  source  common  to  the  two  EvangeHsts 
which  no  longer  exists  and  which  has  conveniently 
been  called  the  Logia  (sayings) — a  Greek  word  by 
which  Papias,  one  of  the  oldest  ecclesiastical  writers, 
designated  the  contents  of  the  original  work  of  the 
Apostle  Matthew.  And  this  for  two  reasons:  (i) 
First  of  all  it  was  noticed  that  the  character  of 
priority,  that  is,  the  older,  unamplified  form  of  these 
sayings,  was  not  always  found  in  the  same  Evangel- 
ist, as  would  be  the  case  if  one  served  as  source  for 
the  other,  but  sometimes  in  Matthew  and  sometimes 
in  Luke.  (2)  Next,  the  two  Evangelists  arrange  the 
sayings  of  Jesus,  which  they  both  record,  independ- 
ently of  one  another.  Matthew  prefers  to  weave 
these  short  sayings  into  long  discourses.  Luke 
keeps  them  separate  as  far  as  possible.  Matthew 
tries  to  fit  the  discourses,  thus  composed,  into  the 
narrative  of  Mark  and  has  no  need  therefore  to  pre- 
fix any  sort  of  historical  introduction.  Luke,  on  the 
other  hand,  weaves  all  that  he  has  over  and  above 
Mark,  comprising  what  he  has  in  common  with 
Matthew,  into  two  narratives,  one  longer  than  the 
other,  and  inserts  them  into  the  common  narrative 
of  Mark  in  the  form  of  two  long  parentheses.  And 
since,  by  this  arrangement,  he  does  not  use  the 
incidents  of  Mark  as  opportunities  for  the  sayings 
of  Jesus,  he  prefixes  to  each  of  these  sayings  an 


52      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

historical  introduction  to  explain  the  occasion  of  its 
utterance.  (3)  Lastly,  the  supposition  of  a  source 
distinct  from  the  synoptics  is  confirmed  by  the  fact 
that  both  Matthew  and  Luke  repeat  the  same  say- 
ing of  Jesus  twice  over  whenever  that  saying  is  also 
recorded  by  Mark.  The  most  natural  explanation 
of  this  is  like  that  given  for  the  *'  duplicates"  of  the 
Pentateuch,  namely,  each  Evangelist  depends  on 
two  sources — Mark  and  the  Logia.  Then  remain 
the  parts  peculiar  to  Matthew  alone  and  to  Luke 
alone.  No  general  principle  as  to  their  origin  can 
well  be  established.  Now  and  then  they  might  seem 
to  be  extracts  from  the  Logia.  More  often  they  de- 
pend on  a  special  source,  oral  or  written. 

Closely  connected  with  the  synoptics  is  the  book 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  originally  a  continua- 
tion of  the  Third  Gospel.  It  is  not  therefore  sur- 
prising that  we  find  here  the  same  phenomenon  as 
in  the  synoptics.  Here,  too,  the  letter  presents 
many  contradictions — contradictions  between  one 
part  and  another  of  the  book  itself,  as  when 
the  conversion  of  S.  Paul  is  related  three  distinct 
times  and  not  once  with  the  same  circumstances, 
and  when  his  call  to  the  apostolate  of  the  Gentiles 
is  referred  to  three  different  epochs  in  his  career ; 
contradictions  also  with  the  Pauline  Epistles,  of 
which  the  most  notable  are  those  relating  to  the 
meeting  of   Paul  and  Barnabas   with  the   Apostles 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  53 

at  Jerusalem,  recounted  also  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians. 

But  again  all  this  comes  from  and  is  explained  by 
the  general  tendency  of  the  book,  which  is  to  prove 
the  primitive  unity  of  Christianity  and  its  origin 
from  Christ.  Wherefore  it  first  describes  the  forma- 
tion of  Jewish  Christianity  by  the  apostolate  insti- 
tuted by  Christ,  and  then  the  derivation  of  Gentile 
Christianity,  represented  by  Paul,  from  Jewish  Chris- 
tianity represented  by  Peter.  This  is  effected,  on 
the  one  hand,  by  giving  Paul  more  than  his  due,  as 
when  he  is  credited  with  the  first  preaching  of  the 
Gospel  to  the  Gentile  world,  including  Rome,  where 
the  Jews  are  represented  as  having  previously  heard 
only  some  vague  rumour  of  Christianity ;  whereas  in 
the  Acts  themselves,  not  to  speak  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  there  are  unmistakable  indications  that  prior 
to  S.  Paul's  arrival  Christianity  was  already  estab- 
lished in  Rome  even  among  the  Jews.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  historical  personality  of  Paul  suffers  some 
diminution  when  from  the  moment  of  his  conversion 
he  is  put  in  a  relation  of  such  strict  dependence  on 
Jewish  Christianity,  and  especially  on  the  Church  in 
Jerusalem,  even  as  regards  his  mission  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. Naturally  such  a  portrait  is  contrary  to  that 
given  us  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  whose  aim  is 
to  show  the  immediately  divine  origin  and  absolute 
independence  of  Paul's  apostolate  to  the  Gentiles. 


54      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

The  contradictions  met  with  in  the  Acts  raise  a 
question  as  to  the  composition  of  the  book  and  its 
possible  origin  from  written  sources.  Most  critics 
are  inclined  to  believe  in  several  written  sources,  and 
in  particular  to  mark  off  what  is  called  the  "  We  " 
document  because  it  narrates  in  the  first  person 
plural,  implying  that  the  narrator  shared  the  advent- 
ures he  recounts.  This  source  is  thought  to  be  the 
notes  of  a  travelling  companion  of  S.  Paul's — notes 
which  the  compiler  of  the  Acts  has  used  without 
altogether  succeeding  in  harmonising  them  with 
the  rest  of  his  narrative,  just  because  the  tendency 
of  that  narrative  was  absent  from  the  simple  diary 
of  S.  Paul's  travelling  companion. 

In  the  Fourth  Gospel  we  move  in  a  different  plane 
from  that  of  the  synoptics.  The  form  is  different, 
but,  for  the  most  part,  the  matter  is  also  different. 
Thus  the  field  of  Christ's  ministry  is  not  the  same; 
while  in  the  synoptics  it  is  exclusively  Galilee,  save  for 
one  week  before  His  Passion,  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  it 
is  principally  Judaea  and  Jerusalem.  The  character 
of  the  book  is  not  the  same ;  for  while  of  their  very 
nature  the  synoptics  are  histories  in  which  narratives 
hold  the  chief  place,  and  discourses  are  more  or  less 
strictly  incidental  to  the  narratives,  in  John  the 
discourses  hold  the  first  place  and  the  narratives  only 
serve  to  introduce  the  discourses,  or  else  to  express, 
or  as  it  were  to  materialise,  their  teaching  in  the 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  55 

language  of  fact.  And  to  this  we  must  add  the  aim 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  not  contrary  to  but  higher 
than  that  of  the  others,  which  explains  its  particular 
differences  and  divergences  from  them. 

But  notwithstanding  the  great  difference  that 
separates  the  Fourth  from  the  other  Gospels,  it  can- 
not be  denied  that  there  are  points  of  contact  and 
that  John  must  have  known  and  to  some  extent 
worked  upon  the  synoptics.  This  is  plain  not  only 
in  the  few  places  where  John  agrees  with  the  others 
or  borrows  some  saying  from  them,  but  also  where 
he  openly  diverges  from  them.  For  he  often  lets  us 
see  that  he  does  so  consciously,  and  even  alludes 
(albeit  tacitly)  without  any  embarrassment  to  the 
different  opinion  of  former  writers,  as  when  he  affirms 
that  the  Baptist  had  not  yet  been  cast  into  prison 
when  Jesus  began  to  preach  and  baptise — meaning 
apparently  to  correct  the  Second  Gospel,  which  says 
the  contrary.  From  many  indications  which  we 
cannot  retail  here,  it  seems  clear  that  John  was  ac- 
quainted with  the  Second  and  Third  Gospels,  though 
it  is  doubtful  whether  he  knew  the  First. 

From  what  has  been  said  so  far  we  are  clear  as 
to  what  must  be  considered  the  assured  results  of 
criticism  concerning  the  origin  and  composition  of 
the  historical  books  of  the  New  Testament.  They 
are  chiefly  relative.  First  come  the  Gospel  sources — 
the  Logia  and  Mark,  whether  in  its  present  or  another 


56      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

form.  Then  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
compiled  from  these  sources,  with  their  natural 
sequel,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  which  has  sources 
of  its  own.  Last  of  all  S.  John,  a  unique  and  first- 
hand document. 

But  who  are  the  authors  of  these  several  Scriptures  ? 
This  for  criticism  is  a  secondary  question.  If  the 
traditional  opinion  as  to  the  authors  agrees  with  the 
assured  results  of  criticism  as  to  the  composition, 
mutual  dependence,  and  character  of  the  Gospels,  so 
much  the  better;  if  not,  it  must  be  abandoned.  But 
it  may  be  objected  that  logically  we  should  begin 
with  the  question  of  authorship  and  then  go  on  to 
other  questions.  By  no  means.  The  question  of 
the  composition  and  nature  of  a  book  does  not 
depend  on  the  name  of  the  author  or  compiler 
but  on  a  direct  examination  of  the  book  itself.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  question  of  authorship  is  some- 
times very  complex  and  only  admits  of  an  indirect 
solution.  So  in  the  case  of  the  Gospels.  The  tra- 
dition which  ascribes  them  to  those  whose  names 
they  bear  finds  indirect  expression  for  the  first  time 
in  Justin  Martyr  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  We  cannot  say  directly  what  this  assertion 
of  Justin's  is  worth  or  how  it  stands  in  regard  to  all 
the  generations  between  him  and  the  origin  of  the 
Gospels.  At  most  we  can  make  more  or  less  pro- 
bable conjectures  on  the  matter.       Logic    requires 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  57 

that  we  should  begin  by  examining  the  books  them- 
selves which  are  before  our  eyes,  and  then  pass  on  to 
examine  this  or  that  assertion  as  to  their  authorship. 
The  latter  investigation  can  be  greatly  aided  by 
the  former,  but  not  vice  versa. 

This  granted,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  two 
sources  of  the  Gospel  should  not  be  attributed,  as 
they  are  by  Papias,  one  to  Matthew  and  the  other  to 
Mark ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  very  likely  that  the 
Third  Gospel  was  written  by  Luke,  the  companion 
of  S.  Paul,  since  it  is  certainly  by  the  author  of  the 
Acts ;  and  the  Book  of  Acts,  which  is  at  contradiction 
with  itself  and  with  the  Pauline  Epistles  concerning 
many  particulars  about  S.  Paul,  can  hardly  have  been 
written  by  a  close  companion  of  his.  All  we  can  say 
is  that  one  of  the  sources  of  the  Acts  is  the  work  of 
a  travelling  companion  of  S.  Paul,  who  was  probably 
S.  Luke  ;  whence  the  whole  work,  of  which  the  Third 
Gospel  is  part,  came  to  be  ascribed  to  the  said  Luke. 
Still  less  likely  is  it  that  the  P'irst  Gospel  was  written 
by  the  Apostle  Matthew  if,  as  we  have  said,  it  was 
compiled  from  the  Second  Gospel  (written  in  Greek) 
and  by  one  who  was  not  an  eye-witness  of  the  events 
recorded.  Here,  too,  it  is  probable  that  the  name  of 
the  author  of  one  of  the  sources — the  Logia — has 
been  given  to  the  whole  work.  Far  more  complex  is 
the  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
nor  can  we  here  even  touch  upon  it.     Suffice  it  to 


58      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

say  that  the  traditional  opinion  squares  badly  with 
the  nature  of  the  book  as  revealed  by  an  internal 
examination  and  a  comparison  with  the  synoptics. 

Of  the  other  New  Testament  books  we  can  speak 
but  briefly.  The  Pauline  Epistles  for  the  most  part 
are  frankly  admitted  by  criticism  to  be  authentic, 
notwithstanding  the  hypercritical  objections  of  the 
Dutch  school.  Exception  however  must  be  made 
not  only  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  bears 
no  writer's  name,  either  in  itself  or  in  the  most  an- 
cient tradition,  but  also  of  certain  epistles  professing, 
to  be  by  S.  Paul,  such  as  those  to  Titus  and  Timo- 
thy. Also  the  Catholic  Epistles  are  generally  con- 
sidered pseudonymous.  This  conclusion  is  founded 
on  a  comparison  of  such  Epistles  with  the  undis- 
putedly  Pauline  Epistles,  and  v/ith  the  conditions, 
otherwise  ascertained,  of  the  time  to  which  they  are 
ascribed  and  with  the  qualification  of  the  persons 
supposed  to  be  their  authors.  The  name  of  this  or 
that  apostle  which  stands  at  the  beginning  is,  for 
criticism,  no  sufificient  proof  of  their  authorship. 
The  publication  of  books  under  another's  name  was 
not  so  unusual  or  so  discreditable  in  former  times. 
Very  little  later  than  the  New  Testament  we  find, 
for  example,  the  Revelation  of  Peter,  the  Gospel  of 
Peter,  the  Preaching  of  Peter — all  of  which  are 
pseudonymous.  We  find  the  like  in  Judaism  about 
the   time   of   Christ.      Not  only   were   apocalyptic 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  vSystem  59 

writings  ascribed  to  some  great  name  of  the  past, 
such  as  Moses,  Enoch,  Isaiah,  etc.,  but  the  sapi- 
ential hterature,  and  especially  the  canonical  Book 
of  Wisdom,  was  credited  to  Solomon.  Analogous 
examples  occur  in  classical  [literature.  Not  to  speak 
of  others,  a  great  mass  of  writings,  evidently  not 
genuine,  has  come  down  to  us  under  the  name  of 
Pythagoras.  This  happens  more  easily  in  regard 
to  letters,  especially  as  the  epistolary  form  is  often 
itself  a  mere  literary  fiction.  Pseudonymity  is  there- 
fore not  necessarily  dishonest  or  immoral ;  it  was 
one  of  the  many  recognised  literary  artifices  of 
antiquity. 

The  criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  like  that  of 
the  Old  Testament,  involves  many  though  still 
graver  consequences   for   theology. 

(i)  First  of  all  we  find  that  it  confirms  that  notion 
of  inspiration  forced  upon  us  by  the  literary  compo- 
sition of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  the  other  historical 
writings  of  the  Old  Testament.  Those  theologians 
who,  as  we  have  said,  have  given  up  the  ancient  and 
traditional  notion  of  verbal  inspiration  were  forced 
to  do  so  by  a  comparison  of  the  Gospels  which  made 
it  impossible  to  believe  that  God  had  inspired  the 
different  Evangelists  to  report  in  a  different  form 
words  (like  those  of  the  eucharistic  institution) 
uttered  but  once  by  Christ  and  therefore  only  in  one 
form.     But  even  in  such  cases  we  find  it  is  not  a 


6o      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

question  of  merely  verbal  difference.  The  difference 
even  of  more  or  less,  so  common  in  the  Gospels,  is 
sometimes  indeed  a  real  difference  ;  but  often  the 
very  same  saying  of  Christ  is  reported  in  a  different 
sense  in  different  Gospels,  as  is  evident  from  the 
context  or  from  some  word  changed  or  added.  A 
still  more  decisive  argument  against  the  old  mechani- 
cal idea  of  inspiration  is  found  in  the  manner  in 
which  the  Gospel  sources  are  not  only  drawn  upon 
by  the  successive  Evangelists  but  modified  as  to  their 
arrangement  and  argument.  Had  God  formed  the 
ideas  and  then  transmitted  them  to  the  Evangelists, 
we  should  have  to  say  that,  being  dissatisfied  with 
His  first  attempt,  He  had  repeatedly  revised,  cor- 
rected, and  rearranged  it  like  any  human  author. 

Furthermore,  the  said  mode  of  procedure  on  the 
part  of  the  Evangelists  shows  that  they  did  not 
consider  their  predecessors  to  be  inspired  in  the  old 
sense  of  the  word,  else  they  would  have  scrupulously 
respected  their  arrangement,  their  arguments,  and 
even  their  very  words.  Plainly  S.  Luke  in  his  pro- 
logue does  not  consider  himself  or  his  predecessors 
exempt  from  the  need  of  labour  nor  immune  from 
error.  He  implies  that  the  composition  of  a  Gospel 
supposes  the  possibility  of  ever  new  attempts,  and 
is  so  high  and  hard  an  enterprise  that  no  one  Evan- 
gelist can  hope  to  accomplish  it  perfectly. 

(2)  In  the  second  place  theology  has  to  learn  that 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  6i 

in  the  New  as  in  the  Old  Testament  there  are, 
strictly  speaking,  no  historical  books  but  only  sacred 
narratives  shaped  in  great  part  by  the  faith  in 
whose  service  they  are  written.  The  original  sources 
are  amplified  by  the  successive  writers  and  receive 
a  new  form  and  a  new  content ;  and  this  not  because 
the  later  writers  have  made  fresh  investigations  and 
acquired  a  more  exact  knowledge  of  the  facts.  Were 
it  so  they  would  agree  and  not  differ  among  them- 
selves more  and  more.  Whence  it  is  plain  that  the 
successive  changes  depend  only  on  the  peculiar 
religious  tendencies  of  each  writer. 

But  one  may  object  that  Luke  declares  at  the  out- 
set that  his  intention  is  to  write  "  accurately  and  in 
order."  To  which  we  answer  that  anyone  who  com- 
pares the  Third  Gospel  with  the  Second  will  soon  see 
what  sort  of  "  order  "  Luke  has  in  mind.  He  puts 
the  preaching  at  Nazareth  at  the  beginning  of  Jesus' 
ministry  ;  then  the  first  day  at  Capernaum  ;  and  then 
the  call  of  the  first  disciples.  Mark,  on  the  other 
hand,  puts  the  preaching  at  Nazareth  much  later  ; 
begins  with  the  call  of  the  disciples,  followed  by  the 
first  day  at  Capernaum.  The  reason  why  Luke  has 
changed  the  order  of  Mark  is  evidently  not  an  his- 
torical one.  For  even  he  (v.  23)  shows  that  he  knew 
that  the  preaching  at  Capernaum  came  before  that 
at  Nazareth,  and  (v.  38)  that  the  call  of  the  disciples 
came  before  the  day  at  Capernaum.     But  he  prefers 


62      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

another  order,  because  the  preaching  at  Nazareth 
represents  for  him  the  preaching  of  Christianity 
among  the  Jews,  and  that  at  Capernaum  its  procla- 
mation to  the  Gentiles ;  and  because  in  the  miracul- 
ous draught  of  fishes,  connected  with  the  call  of  the 
disciples,  he  sees  a  figure  of  the  abundant  results  of 
the  apostolic  preaching  which  succeeded  the  preach- 
ing of  Christ.  The  "order"  of  Luke  is  not  deter- 
mined by  historical  but  by  doctrinal  and  allegorical 
motives.  And  therefore  the  same  can  be  said  (or 
rather,  after  a  comparison  with  the  other  synoptics, 
must  be  said)  of  that  a'cribia,  or  accuracy,  of  which 
Luke  makes  profession  in  his  prologue. 

It  may  also  be  objected  that  Luke's  object  is  to 
demonstrate  the  Christian  faith :  "  That  thou  mayest 
know  the  truth  of  those  matters  wherein  thou  hast  been 
instructed^  And  so  also  S.  John  :  **  These  things  are 
written  that  you  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christy 
the  Son  of  God.''  And  if  so,  the  Gospel  story  should, 
of  its  very  nature,  be  materially  exact,  else  it  could 
have  no  demonstrative  value. 

But  first  of  all,  be  it  noted,  that  the  Gospels  were 
not  written  to  argue  unbelievers  into  belief,  but  to 
illustrate  and  strengthen  the  faith  of  believers.  If 
at  times  they  mingle  apologetic  with  doctrinal  in- 
struction, it  is  only  indirectly  and  with  a  view  to 
arming  believers  against  the  hostile  controversy  of 
the  Jews.     And  this  is  clear  not  only  from  an  in- 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  63 

spection  of  the  Gospels  but  from  Luke's  prologue, 
where  he  says  that  he  is  going  to  relate  matters 
which  (as  the  Greek  has  it)  ''have  been  fully  estab- 
lished amongst  us  "  ;  and  this  to  Theophilus,  who 
has  already  been  briefly  instructed  in  them  and  only 
needs  a  better  knowledge  of  their  certainty  and 
security.  No  doubt,  in  order  to  support  the  faith 
of  its  readers,  the  Gospel  story  ought  to  be  true  and 
real  and  founded  on  the  witness  of  **  those  who  from 
the  first  have  seen  for  themselves  and  have  been 
ministers  of  the  word  of  God."  But  as  here  the 
faith  of  the  readers  does  not  need  to  be  wakened  for 
the  first  time,  since  it  is  already  alive  and  active 
both  in  reader  and  writer,  it  spontaneously  rests 
upon  and  colours  the  narrative — transforming  it,  to 
some  extent,  so  as  to  make  it  a  more  effectual  ex- 
pression of  the  object  of  faith.  For  this  reason  the 
Gospel  story  is  at  once  the  cause  and  the  effect,  the 
root  and  the  blossom  of  faith.  It  is  the  result  of 
two  opposite  tendencies — one  toward  the  material 
truth  of  fact,  the  other  toward  a  higher  order  of 
truth  than  that  of  historical  exactitude.  Wherefore 
the  Gospel  literature  is  a  unique  sort  of  literature 
determined  by  the  peculiar  double  character  of  its 
object. 

We  find  a  parallel  to  the  method  followed  by  the 
Gospels  in  the  allegorical  interpretation  so  much  in 
use  among  the  ancient  Hebrews,   among  the  early 


64      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

Christians,  and  in  the  Gospels  themselves,  according 
to  which  biblical  texts  and  facts  receive  a  higher 
sense  conformable  to  the  interpreters'  own  faith,  but 
differing  from  and  even  irreconcilable  with  the  literal 
sense.  Here  also  it  is  faith  that  seeks  a  support  and 
means  of  expression  for  itself.  The  Encyclical 
denies  that  it  is  possible  to  explain  the  facts  that  we 
have  noted  in  the  Gospels  by  means  of  old-world 
usages  and  by  methods  framed  in  the  exigencies  of 
the  religious  life.  But  the  facts  cannot  be  denied, 
and  all  we  can  do  is  to  try  and  explain  them. 

From  the  nature,  therefore,  of  the  Gospels,  as  de- 
termined by  criticism,  it  follows  that  we  must  dis- 
tinguish two  elements  in  them :  one  corresponding 
to  historical  reality,  the  other  to  the  supernatural 
reality  of  faith.  It  is  not  true  that  we  make  a  clean- 
cut  division  of  the  documents,  assigning  those  to  ex- 
ternal history,  and  these  to  internal  histor>^ — that  is, 
to  the  history  of  faith.  The  two  elements  are  for  the 
most  part  so  blended  that  they  can  be  distinguished 
but  not  separated.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  faith- 
truth  is  not  always  historical  truth,  but  often  only 
historical  fiction.  And  therefore  since  it  is  faith- 
truth  that  governs  the  Gospels  from  beginning  to  end 
we  must  not  always  expect  to  find  historical  truth  as 
well.  It  is  found  in  different  measures  in  different 
Gospels,  most  of  all  in  Mark,  least  of  all  in  John. 

Still  more  false  is  it  that  we  allow  to  faith-truth 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  65 

only  a  subjective  existence  in  the  mind  of  the  be- 
liever— as  the  Encyclical  seems  to  say.  For  us,  the 
realities  of  history  and  of  faith  are  equally  objective 
but  belong  to  different  orders  of  truth — the  former 
to  the  sensible  and  natural  order,  the  latter  to  the 
super-sensible  and  supernatural.  And  for  this  rea- 
son they  are  the  objects  of  two  sorts  of  knowledge. 
Historical  truth  can  be  established  by  means  of  sen- 
sible experience ;  which  experience,  though  a  useful 
means,  is  not  sufificient  for  the  knowledge  of  faith 
which  postulates  a  supernatural  light.  Else  faith 
and  historical  knowledge  would  be  the  same  thing — 
an  identification  replete  with  preposterous  conse- 
quences. All  this  is  so  obvious  that  it  is  truly 
astonishing  to  see  how  the  Encyclical  repudiates  it 
to  the  extent  of  denying  that  history  being  con- 
cerned, solely  with  phenomena,  cannot  as  such  prove 
the  existence  of  God  or  His  intervention  in  human 
affairs.  But  even  profane  history  allows  that  its 
competence  ceases  with  phenomena — with  the  facts 
and  their  interconnection.  To  investigate  their  in- 
wardness and  their  ultimate  causes  belongs  to  a 
higher  science  called  the  philosophy  of  history. 

When  religious  history  is  in  question,  to  reason 
about  the  value  which  its  facts  possess  in  relation  to 
God  and  the  supernatural  order  has  never  hitherto 
been  regarded  as  the  business  of  the  historian,  whose 
only  concern  is  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  facts. 


66     The  Programme  of  Modernism 

but  as  exclusively  the  business  of  the  theologian 
who  is  occupied  with  the  science  of  faith. 

Now  let  us  apply  all  this  to  the  much-abused  dis- 
tinction between  the  Christ  of  history  and  the  Christ 
of  faith.  In  Himself  Christ  is  one,  but  He  can  be 
considered  as  the  object  of  history  and  the  object  of 
faith.  As  man,  the  person  of  Jesus  and  His  out- 
ward words  and  actions  were  matters  of  sensible 
experience,  and  in  this  sense  He  belongs  to  history. 
As  Christ  (that  is,  as  united  to  God  in  a  quite  unique 
manner  and  as  a  mediator  of  revelation  and  grace 
between  us  and  God)  He  can  only  be  apprehended 
by  a  divine  and  spiritual  light ;  and  in  this  aspect 
He  belongs  not  to  history  but  to  faith.  When 
Peter,  pondering  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus,  saw 
that  He  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  it  was  said 
to  him :  "  Flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  to 
thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in  Heaven  " ;  and  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  this  is  extended  to  all  believers. 
"  No  man  cometh  to  me  unless  the  Father  who  sent 
me  draw  him."  What  is  revealed  by  flesh  and  blood 
is  history  ;  what  is  revealed  by  the  Father  is  faith. 

Another  reason  for  distinguishing  between  the 
Christ  of  history  and  the  Christ  of  faith  is  that  there 
are  two  distinct  states  or  stages  in  His  life.  First, 
that  of  His  mortal  life,  in  which  He  converses  with 
men  as  men  do  with  one  another.  Then  that  of  His 
glorified  life,  beginning  at  His  resurrection,  in  which 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  67 

He  still  holds  converse  with  us  in  a  spiritual  and  in- 
visible manner.  In  the  first  stage  He  acted  simply 
as  a  prophet,  preparing  the  Kingdom  of  God,  stir- 
ring men  up  to  repentance,  and  teaching  them  by- 
word and  example  to  live  according  to  God's  will. 
In  the  second,  having  risen  to  a  new  and  spiritual 
life.  He  imparts  to  us  His  own  spirit;  that  is.  He 
lives  His  own  life  in  us,  not  only  in  each  of  us  singly 
but  also  in  the  Church  collectively,  thus  leading  us 
to  share  already,  and  in  germ,  the  higher  life  of  the 
world  to  come.  In  this  life  of  Christ  in  us,  mani- 
fested internally  by  the  communication  to  us  of  His 
Holy  Spirit,  and  externally  by  our  fulfilment  of  His 
commandments,  stands  the  whole  essence  of  Christi- 
anity. Read  the  Epistles  of  S.  Paul,  throbbing  with 
the  full  life  of  nascent  Christianity,  and  say  if  there 
be  aught  else  than  this.  Even  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  Christ  of  history  and  the  Christ  of  faith 
has  already  been  made  by  S.  Paul,  albeit  in  other 
terms.  He  distinguishes  between  Christ,  according 
to  the  flesh  and  according  to  the  spirit.  For  exam- 
ple, consider  carefully  his  definition  of  the  Gospel  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  :  "  The 
Gospel  of  God  which  He  foretold  by  His  prophets  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  concerning  His  Son,  who,  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh,  was  born  of  the  seed  of  David, 
and  according  to  the  Holy  Spirit  was  predestined  to 
become  the  mighty  Son  of  God  by  His  resurrection 


68     The  Programme  of  Modernism 

from  the  dead."  A  different  sort  of  existence  de- 
mands a  different  faculty  of  apprehension  ;  the  mor- 
tal life  of  Christ,  as  evident  to  the  senses,  is  an 
object  of  history ;  His  spiritual  life  in  the  faith  and 
in  the  Church  can  only  be  known — at  least  in  its 
entirety  and  its  inward  nature — by  means  of  the  ex- 
periences of  faith.  But  this  second  kind  of  life  can 
also  be  at  least  represented  under  an  historical  form, 
and  this  gives  rise  not  only  to  a  distinction  but  to  a 
separation  between  the  historical  Christ  and  the 
Christ  of  faith.  The  supernatural  life  of  Christ  in 
the  Church  has  expressed  itself  outwardly  in  con- 
formity with  outer  circumstances,  and  has  thus 
gradually  given  birth  to  permanent  ecclesiastical  in- 
stitutions. Now  the  Evangelists,  in  order  better  to 
signify  the  dependence  of  these  institutions  on  the 
spirit  of  Christ,  ever  living  in  the  Church,  have 
thrown  their  origin  back  into  the  very  history  of  the 
mortal  life  of  Jesus.  And  in  so  doing  they  act  with 
even  more  right  than  the  authors  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, who  refer  all  Jewish  laws  and  institutions 
back  to  the  days  of  Moses.  And  therefore  criticism 
does  v/ell  to  distinguish  what  is  history  proper  from 
what  is  merely  an  historical  form  of  representing 
those  supernatural  facts  which  the  Church's  faith 
has  brought  forth. 

Nor  in  making  this  distinction  or  separation  does 
criticism  (as  some  would  pretend)  rest  on  an  a  priori 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  69 

principle — on  theories  of  **  transfiguration "  and 
"  disfiguration,"  but,  as  ever,  on  the  examination  of 
texts  and  facts.  Take  for  example  the  institution 
of  the  free  and  universal  Church — independent,  that 
is,  of  the  bondage  of  the  law  and  of  the  Jewish 
nationality.  Such  a  Church  came  into  existence 
very  gradually  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  Had 
it  been  instituted  directly  by  Jesus  upon  earth,  or 
quite  suddenly  after  His  resurrection,  it  would  be 
impossible  to  explain  the  conduct  of  the  apostles 
who  remained  for  a  long  time  attached  to  the  syna- 
gogue. Still  more  utterly  inexplicable  would  be 
Paul's  great  struggle  against  the  Jew  Christians  (in 
which,  to  say  the  least,  he  was  not  backed  up  by  the 
other  apostles)  in  the  cause  of  the  universality  of 
Christianity  and  of  its  independence  of  Judaism. 
Yet  it  was  Paul  more  than  any  other  who  helped  to 
found  the  Catholic  Church.  But  even  the  Evangel- 
ists tend,  each  in  his  own  way  and  degree^  to  ascribe 
its  foundation  to  the  historical  Christ.  This  ten- 
dency is  but  faint  in  Mark,  much  more  pronounced 
in  Luke,  and  most  of  all  in  Matthew,  who  puts  the 
institution  of  the  Church  into  the  lips  of  the  risen 
Christ,  and  makes  the  earthly  Christ  foretell  the 
universality  of  an  external  institution  of  his  own, 
analogous  to  the  Jewish  Church.  But  the  prbcess 
culminates  in  S.  John,  where  Christianity  is  repre- 
sented as  being,  already  in  the  lifetime  of  Jesus,  a 


70      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

religion  of  its  own  nature  universal,  a  worship  in 
spirit  and  in  truth,  perfectly  distinct  and  separate 
from  Judaism.  In  the  Fourth  Gospel  we  find 
already  formally  realised,  and  even  surpassed,  those 
results  which  were  only  obtained  by  S.  Paul  after  a 
long  and  fierce  struggle. 

As  the  supernatural  life  of  Christ  in  the  faithful 
and  in  the  Church  has  been  clothed  in  an  historical 
form  which  has  given  birth  to  what  we  might  some- 
what loosely  call  the  Christ  of  legend,  so  the  same  life 
has  been  submitted  to  a  doctrinal  elaboration  or 
explanation  which  has  given  birth  to  the  Christ  of 
theology  or  dogma.  Christ  imparts  to  us  His  Spirit, 
and  therewith  a  divine  life.  What  then  are  the 
bonds  that  unite  Him  to  God  ?  In  what  way  does 
He  so  possess  the  Spirit  as  to  be  able  to  impart  it  to 
us  ?  This  is  the  fundamental  problem  from  which 
all  Christian  theology  has  sprung.  First  an  explana- 
tion was  sought  in  the  notion  of  the  Jewish  Messiah 
corrected  by  the  facts  of  Christian  history.  The 
Messiah  was  not  to  be  an  earthly  king,  as  the  Jews 
imagined,  but  a  heavenly  king  entering  into  His 
glory  through  suffering.  And  at  His  resurrection 
He  received  the  Spirit,  and  so  became  "  Christ 
according  to  the  Spirit."  This  is  the  notion  ex- 
pressed by  Peter,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  that  also  inspires  the  nar- 
rative which  is  the  basis  of  the  synoptics,  in  which, 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  71 

however,  Jesus  receives  the  Spirit  even  before  His 
resurrection: — in  Mark,  at  His  baptism,  before  the 
beginning  of  His  ministry;  in  Matthew  and  Luke  at 
His  very  conception,  although  the  descent  of  the 
Spirit  at  His  baptism  is  still  retained.  In  the  theology 
of  S.  Paul  we  already  find  a  heavenly  existence,  ante- 
rior to  His  earthly  existence,  ascribed  to  Christ.  From 
the  foundation  of  the  world  He  was  "  the  heavenly 
Adam,"  "  in  the  form  of  God,"  and  in  that  sense 
the  "  Son  of  God  " — a  conception  answering  to  that 
of  the  "  Son  of  Man  "  in  certain  Jewish  apocalypses. 
In  the  synoptics  we  also  find  the  title,  Son  of  God, 
attributed  to  Christ  in  this  sense,  and  superimposed 
on  the  idea  of  His  Messiahship.  In  the  Fourth 
Gospel  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  we  are 
carried  a  step  further.  The  Son  of  God,  pre-existing 
before  His  appearance  on  earth,  comes  to  be  identi- 
fied with  the  Word  of  God,  with  Philo's  "  second 
God,"  with  S.  John's  "  God  the  only  begotten,"  with 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews'  "  radiance  of  His  glory 
and  express  image  of  His  substance."  Therefore,  in 
the  Gospel  of  John,  Christ  is  spirit  by  nature,  and 
for  this  reason  not  only  is  no  mention  made  of  His 
conception  by  means  of  the  Spirit,  but  the  descent 
of  the  Spirit  on  Him  at  His  baptism  is  considered 
merely  as  a  sign  to  the  Baptist  that  Jesus  is  He 
who  baptises,  not  merely  with  water  like  John,  but 
with  the  Spirit. 


72      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

All  these  various  successive  and  sometimes  over- 
lapping conceptions  are  evidently  elaborated  to  ex- 
plain that  one  fact  of  which  Christian  faith  has 
continual  and  ever  new  experience,  namely,  that 
Christ  lives  in  us  and  that  it  is  He  who  baptises 
with  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  fact  supposes  an  in- 
timate and  unique  communion  with  God,  owing  to 
which  Jesus  is  able  to  impart  God  and  God's  spirit 
to  us  also — a  communion  so  unparalleled  as  for  ever 
to  transcend  our  imagination  and  understanding,  and 
for  this  reason  never  to  be  adequately  expressed  by 
even  our  sublimest  theological  explanations. 

Hence  it  was  that  Christianity  felt  free  in  the  early 
ages  to  give  expression  to  its  faith  in  the  language  of 
any  speculative  system  current  among  the  faithful 
for  the  time  being.  Its  principal  and  even  sole 
interest  was  in  the  realities  experienced  by  faith. 
Explanations  and  theories  had  but  a  relative  value  in 
its  eyes  so  far  as  they  served  better  to  communicate 
those  realities  and  reproduce  the  same  experiences 
in  others.  Look  at  S.  Paul,  for  instance.  Although 
he  had  a  very  complicated  and  artificial  theology 
of  his  own,  yet  he  protested  that  he  desired  to  know 
nothing  but  Christ  crucified  ;  that  is,  to  experience 
the  life-giving  efficacy  of  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ.  He  did  not  scorn  theology,  but  made 
use  of  it  as  an  instrument  of  faith.  He  gives  it  a 
relative,  but  certainly  not  an  absolute,  value. 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  73 

In  the  beginning  therefore  we  find  not  strictly- 
defined  doctrines  or  dogmas,  but  a  faith  that  is 
"  lived  "  intensely.  Definitions  began  where  specu- 
lation concerning  the  person  of  Christ  "  went  too 
far"  (2  John,  ix.),  in  such  sort  as  to  make  Him  a 
purely  ideal  being  and  to  destroy  the  historical 
Christ.  Such  definitions  were  rather  negative  than 
positive  in  their  aim — which  was  to  keep  speculation 
within  the  due  Hmits  imposed  by  faith  and  history. 
It  is  thus  against  the  Gnostics,  who  denied  the 
reality  of  Christ's  humanity,  that  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  especially  the  catholic  and 
pastoral  epistles,  are  chiefly  directed.  The  Gnostic 
theology  is  styled  a  ''science  falsely  so  named"; 
its  professors  are  called  vain  babblers,  seducers,  and 
otherwise  laden  with  reproaches. 

We  are  far  from  wishing  to  follow  the  lines  and 
methods  of  Gnosticism.  Not  only  have  we  no  de- 
sire to  overpass  the  due  limits  of  theological  specu- 
lation, but,  while  respecting  it  within  its  proper 
limits,  we  would  give  it  at  most  a  relative  and  not 
an  absolute  value.  It  is  not  from  theological  specu- 
lation of  itself  that  we  draw  our  spiritual  life,  but 
from  Christ,  whose  personality  and  value  theology 
may  in  some  degree  help  us  better  to  understand 
and  express.  By  means  of  history  we  see  in  Him  a 
man  who  has  taught  us  by  word  and  example ;  by 
means  of  faith  we  experience  in  Him  the  Saviour 


74      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

whose  death  and  resurrection  have  given  us  a  new 
life.  So,  with  the  eye  of  criticism,  we  discern  in  the 
Gospels  the  historical  Christ ;  but  not  everywhere, 
for  we  know  how  to  distinguish  between  the  Christ 
of  history  and  the  Christ  of  legend  and  theology. 
With  the  eye  of  faith  we  see,  whether  under  the 
Christ  of  history,  or  of  theology  and  legend,  that 
'*  Christ  according  to  the  Spirit,"  to  the  sole  saving 
knowledge  of  whom  the  Evangelists  have  exclusively 
devoted  their  labours. 

{c)  Criticism  and  the  Development  of  Christianity 

The  critical  method  applied  to  the  history  of 
Christianity  has  yielded  results  no  less  decisive. 

The  traditional  apologists  have  been  wont  to  view 
the  Church  as  an  institution  leading  a  life  apart 
from  the  surrounding  social  and  political  world, 
growing  and  shaping  itself  according  to  peculiar  laws 
of  development,  whose  largely  miraculous  character 
forbids  their  verification.  This  ancient  conception 
of  the  Church  as  the  work  of  the  Logos^  and  as  a 
domain  closed  to  the  influence  of  those  laws  which 
govern  the  growth  of  human  societies,  having  once 
obtained  footing  in  the  great  historical  construction 
of  Eusebius,  has  for  long  ages  been  the  postulate  of 
all  Catholic  ecclesiastical  history. 

A  prepossession  of  this  kind,  joined  with  the  no- 
tion of  revelation  as  being,  before  all,  a  communica- 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  75 

tion  of  unchangeable  abstract  propositions,  led  to 
another  assumption,  namely,  that  the  dogmatic 
affirmations,  which  gradually  became  part  of  the 
inherited  intellectual  explanation  of  faith,  as  well 
as  the  external  forms  progressively  assumed  by  the 
ecclesiastical  organisation,  existed,  at  least  implicitly, 
from  the  very  beginning  in  the  preaching  of  Jesus,  in 
the  faith  of  the  first  Christians,  and  in  the  teaching 
of  the  Fathers. 

Historical  criticism  has  purged  our  minds  in- 
exorably of  these  prepossessions.  For  criticism, 
Christianity  is  a  fact  like  any  other,  subject  to  the 
same  laws  of  development,  permeated  by  the  same 
political,  juridical,  and  economic  influences,  liable  to 
the  same  variations.  Its  quality  of  religious  fact 
does  not  rob  it  of  those  other  qualities  which  belong 
to  every  historical  fact  in  which  man's  spiritual 
activity  has  found  expression. 

And  therefore  criticism,  without  any  preoccupa- 
tion, has  studied  the  fact  of  Christianity  in  its 
historical  context  both  as  to  its  origin  and  its  uni- 
versal propagation.  Studying  and  comparing  the 
New  Testament  documents,  considering  the  date  of 
their  composition  and  the  practical  scope  of  their 
several  authors,  it  has,  as  we  have  seen,  put  it  be- 
yond doubt  that  their  narrative  shows  traces  of  an 
elaboration  of  the  person  and  teaching  of  Christ  ac- 
complished in  the  religious  consciousness  of  the  first 


76      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

two  or  three  generations  of  believers.  And  then 
setting  itself  to  discern,  through  these  incrustations 
formed  round  them  by  an  exalted  faith,  the  authen- 
tic words  of  the  Master  and  the  simple  theme  of  His 
discourses,  it  has  been  driven  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  Gospel  of  Jesus  was  a  persistent  and  enthusiastic 
proclamation  of  a  coming  kingdom  of  God  ;  that  it 
was  free  from  all  admixture  of  a  materialistic 
eschatology ;  that  at  bottom  it  was  an  earnest  and 
authoritative  call  to  purity  of  heart.  All  the  rest, 
that  is,  the  wondrous  affirmations  as  to  the  personal 
relations  between  Christ  and  the  Father  (so  far  as 
they  exceed  the  then  common  identification  of  the 
Messiah  with  the  Son  of  God),  the  ever  more  inward 
and  spiritual  conception  of  the  Messianic  kingdom, 
the  special  description  of  the  Church  or  community 
of  the  faithful  as  the  earthly  equivalent  of  the 
heavenly  kingdom — all  this  represents  the  formula- 
tion of  new  ideas  evoked  by  Christian  experience, 
especially  in  the  more  intellectual  and  cultivated 
followers  of  the  Gospel,  and  notably  in  S.  Paul. 
Such  a  criticism  of  the  historical  substance  of 
Christ's  teaching  does  away  with  the  possibihty  of 
finding  in  it  even  the  embryonic  form  of  the  Church's 
later  theological  teaching.  So  too  an  impartial  study 
of  the  patristic  tradition  (preceded  by  a  careful 
study  of  the  authenticity  of  the  documents  to  be 
used,  and  accompanied  by  a  constant  resolve  not  to 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  77 

read  earlier  witnesses  in  the  light  of  later  theological 
conceptions)  has  proved  how  idle  it  is  to  look  there 
for  the  fundamental  lines  of  Catholic  theology  as 
systematised  by  the  scholastics  and  adopted  in  the 
definitions  of  Trent.  What,  without  prepossession, 
must  be  admitted  is,  a  progressive  development  of 
Catholic  theology  springing  from  the  ineradicable 
need  of  supplying  an  intellectual  embodiment  and 
expression  for  that  religious  experience  which,  once 
evoked  by  the  preaching  of  Christ,  has  remained 
substantially  the  same  thing  under  all  its  successive 
embodiments. 

An  ancient  legend  told  by  Rufinus  in  the  fourth 
century  relates  how  *'  after  the  Lord's  ascension  the 
Apostles  received  orders  to  separate  and  spread 
over  the  world  to  preach  the  word  of  God.  Before 
separating  they  took  counsel  and  agreed  on  a  com- 
mon rule  of  belief  lest  they  should  be  found  teach- 
ing different  doctrines.  Full  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
they  composed  the  creed."*  Thus  in  the  fourth 
century  the  belief  had  gained  ground  that  the  prin- 
cipal dogmas  of  Christianity  had  been  formulated  by 
the  Apostles,  fresh  from  the  teaching  of  their  Master 
and  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Modern  criticism 
has  not  only  shown  this  legend  to  be  false  but  has 
striven  to  show,  positively,  that  it  is  arbitrary  and 
aprioristic  to  hold  that  the  dogmas  of  faith  go  back, 

*  Rufinus,  Cpm.  in  Symb, 


yS      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

in  their  present  expression,  to  the  primitive  teaching 
of  Christ  and  his  immediate  followers.  Every  day 
brings  new  successes  in  the  endeavour  to  mark,  by 
means  of  a  critical  analysis  of  documents,  the  slow, 
and  at  times  imperceptible,  evolution  of  Christian 
psychological  experience  toward  the  reflex  formula- 
tion of  dogma — an  evolution  guided  by  the  necessity 
of  finding  theological  formulas  to  foster  and  direct 
the  original  religion  of  the  Gospel,  which  consists  in 
the  expectation  of  a  kingdom  of  Heaven  upon  earth, 
in  the  felt  solidarity  of  all  souls  in  relation  to  their 
common  good,  and  in  trust  and  confidence  in  the 
Heavenly  Father. 

The  Encyclical,  it  is  true,  upbraids  our  criticism 
with  starting  from  the  assumption  "  that  everything 
in  Church  history  is  to  be  explained  by  'vital 
emanation,'  and  that  every  event  is  the  outcome 
of  some  want  and  should  therefore  be  considered 
as  historically  later  than  that  want."*  Herein  it 
seems  to  reproach  us  with  an  assertion  whose  con- 
trary is  simply  historically  unthinkable  and  theo- 
logically erroneous.  As  we  have  already  said,  the 
history  of  the  Church  as  a  living  society  is,  in  fact, 
governed  by  the  same  laws  as  other  social  institutions. 
Now  it  is  an  elementary  law  of  life,  in  all  its  mani- 
festations, that  every  organ  answers  to  some  vital 
need  and  that  every  output  of  energy  is  determined 

*  Modernist  History  and  Criticism^  Sec.  4. 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  79 

by  some  deep  exigency  of  the  subject.  Moreover, 
it  seems  to  us  as  theologically  incorrect  to  suppose 
that  ecclesiastical  history  is  a  triumph  of  caprice 
and  lawlessness,  as  it  is  thoroughly  orthodox  to 
believe  in  a  divine  Providence  whose  rule  admits 
nothing  superfluous,  and  which  takes  care  that  the 
course  of  events  and  the  development  of  religious 
ideas  in  the  Church  are  reached  according  to  the 
varying  but  normal  exigencies  of  the  faithful.  Nor 
are  these  mere  aprioristic  assumptions  which  vitiate 
the  impartiality  of  historical  research.  History  is 
within  its  province  in  seeking  to  determine  the  im- 
manent reasons  of  facts  and  to  trace  the  impalpable 
but  very  real  exigencies  whence  the  events  recorded 
flow  by  logical  necessity.  History  which  fails  to  do 
this  does  not  merit  the  name. 

The  conclusions  of  such  a  method,  applied  to  the 
history  of  Catholicism,  are  simply  disastrous  to  the 
old  theological  positions.  Instead  of  finding  from 
the  first  at  least  the  germs  of  those  dogmatic  affirma- 
tions formulated  by  Church  authority  in  the  course 
of  ages,  we  have  found  a  sort  of  religion  which  was 
originally  formless  and  undogmatic,  and  which  came 
gradually  to  develop  in  the  direction  of  definite 
forms  of  thought  and  ritual  owing  to  the  require- 
ments of  general  intercourse  and  to  the  need  of  giving 
abstract  expression  to  the  principles  which  should 
shape  the  religious  activity  of  the  faithful.    And  this 


8o      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

was  effected  partly  by  the  efforts  of  Christian  thinkers 
and  partly  by  the  negation  of  the  positions  adopted 
by  heretics.  The  Gospel  message  could  never  have 
lived  and  spread  abroad  in  its  primitive  spiritual 
simplicity.  When  it  passed  the  borders  of  Palestine 
and  was  found  to  be  of  universal  import,  in  order  to 
evoke,  in  other  peoples,  the  same  religious  experi- 
ences— unselfishness,  inward  purification,  hope  in  a 
supernatural  reward  of  righteousness,  reliance  on 
Jesus  the  Christ  and  Redeemer — it  had  to  adapt 
itself  to  their  mentality  and  to  present  Christ,  with 
His  message  of  redemption,  in  a  different  garb  from 
that  which  He  assumed  in  his  Jewish  surroundings 
and  in  the  popular  prophetic  tradition. 

Wonderfully  flexible  in  its  psychological  simplicity, 
like  every  religious  revival,  primitive  Christianity 
spread  over  the  Roman  world,  that  is,  over  the 
countries  bordering  the  basin  of  the  Mediterranean, 
adapting  itself  to  the  mentality  and  spiritual  educa- 
tion of  every  region  and  borrowing  from  each  the 
elements  most  suited  for  its  own  further  development. 
This  work  of  adaptation  (accompanied  by  the  spon- 
taneous accommodation  of  the  Gospel  message  to 
the  ever  more  inexplicable  delay  of  the  Advent, 
whose  nearness  Christ  had  predicted)  was  completed 
in  a  relatively  short  time  and,  thanks  to  the  influence 
of  so  great  a  reHgious  thinker  as  S.  Paul,  has  left  its 
traces  in  the  narratives  of  the  life  of  Jesus  which 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System   8i 

were  primarily  rather  doctrinal  and  hortatory  than 
strictly  historical.  Such  elaborations  affected  most 
especially  those  doctrines  that  afterwards  became 
fundamental  for  Catholicism — the  Trinitarian  and 
Christological  dogmas,  and  the  organisation  of  the 
Church. 

This  Church  which  lay  beyond  the  horizon  of 
Christ's  outlook,  bounded  by  the  Parousia,  grew  up 
naturally  among  His  followers  and  quickly  passed 
from  the  charismatic  hierarchy  of  his  first  days, 
arranged  according  to  personal  graces  and  gifts  of 
the  Spirit,  to  the  ofificial  and  monarchic  hierarchy 
arranged  according  to  measures  of  jurisdiction  and 
sacramental  power. 

As  to  Trinitarian  and  Christological  dogma,  criti- 
cism has  marked  the  various  stages  of  its  progress 
on  its  way  to  the  lucid  af^rmations  of  the  second 
Council  of  Nicea.  The  continual  exultation  of 
Christ  in  the  esteem  and  affection  of  His  followers, 
the  various  formulas  invented  to  express  his  super- 
natural dignity  according  to  the  philosophical  and 
theological  language  of  the  converted  nations,  com- 
bined with  the  sudden  elaboration  of  certain  Hebrew 
conceptions  recast  and  catholicised  by  S.  Paul,  all 
evoked  a  rapid  development  of  the  intellectual 
elements  latent  in  that  spiritual  movement  set  going 
by  the  Gospel  message.  The  Acts  (ii.  22),  echoing  the 
primitive  Christian  teaching,  speak  of  Jesus  as  "  A 

6 


82      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

man  to  whom  God  has  borne  witness  by  miracles 
and  wonders  and  signs  wrought  by  His  means."  He 
is  the  Messiah  upon  whom  an  ignominious  death  has 
conferred  heavenly  glory,  and  who  must  soon  return 
to  inaugurate  His  kingdom.  Such  was  the  simple 
and  deep  faith  of  the  first  disciples.  But  Christ  has 
called  all  the  members  of  the  human  family  to  be 
sons  of  God,  and  has  presented  Himself  as  their 
archetype.  He  is,  therefore.  Himself  pre-eminently 
the  Son  of  God,  according  to  the  prophetic  tradition 
which  attributes  that  dignity  to  the  Messiah. 

Side  by  side  with  this  profound  elaboration  of  the 
simple  Gospel  ideas  of  Christ's  personality  there  was 
a  development  of  the  idea  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  is 
usual  at  the  beginning  of  any  new  religious  upheaval, 
extraordinary  phenomena,  startling  manifestations 
of  a  supernatural  energy,  took  place  in  the  little 
communities  excited  by  the  eager  expectation  of  a 
universal  renewal  of  all  things.  This  energy  or 
power,  which  took  possession  of  the  souls  of  men 
saturated  with  biblical  lessons  and  narratives,  was 
spontaneously  identified  with  the  Spirit  of  Javeh,  to 
which  the  Old  Testament  usually  ascribed  any  action 
that  seemed  to  exceed  the  normal  faculties  of  man. 
A  natural  relationship  soon  came  to  be  established 
between  the  Father  (to  whom  was  directed  the  filial 
devotion  of  the  faithful),  the  Son  (who  was  the  giver 
of  the  Spirit,  that  is,  of  power  to  become  sons  of 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  83 

God)  and  the  Spirit  (who  was  the  cause  of  the  more 
striking  manifestations  of  the  new  faith).  And  since 
it  was  especially  at  baptism  that  these  surprising  and 
mysterious  effects  of  conversion  were  more  manifestly 
displayed,  it  was  in  connection  with  this  initiatory 
rite  that  Christians  first  formulated  the  invocation 
of  the  Trinity — a  formula  unknown  to  S.  Paul.  From 
baptism  the  Trinitarian  formula  passed,  as  Justin 
teaches  us,  into  the  liturgy. 

Upon  these  elementary  data,  the  still  timid  and 
hesitating  expressions  of  the  latent  intellectual  and 
dogmatic  implications  of  Christian  religious  ex- 
perience, there  came  to  be  based  a  vast  theological 
structure  whose  beginnings  and  developments  are  not 
difficult  to  trace.  S.  Paul  had  already  speculated  as 
to  the  pre-existence  of  Christ,  as  to  Christ's  identity 
with  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  to  the  effects  of  the  said 
Spirit,  which  did  not  merely  (like  the  Spirit  of  Javeh 
in  the  Old  Testament)  augment  man's  physical  and 
natural  energies,  but  transformed  man's  inner  life, 
raising  it  to  a  higher  level  of  existence  and  operation. 
And  by  such  speculations  he  led  the  way  in  that  sort 
of  reflection  which  tends  to  express  in  precise  philo- 
sophic categories  the  relations  existing  between  those 
realities  which  feed  and  foster  the  Christian  life. 

The  translation  of  the  Hebrew  conception  of  the 
Messiah  into  the  Platonic  idea  of  the  Logos  marks  a 
culminating  point   in  this    theological   elaboration. 


84      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

Here  the  Messiah  dreamt  of  by  souls  anxiously 
awaiting  the  redemption  of  Israel  was  identified  with 
the  abstract  notion,  essentially  Hellenic,  of  a  cosmic 
intermediary  between  the  world  and  the  Supreme 
Being.  A  Hebrew  conception  possessing  certain 
moral  and  religious  values,  but  otherwise  unmeaning 
for  the  Hellenic  mind,  was  translated  into  Alexandrine 
terminology  in  such  a  way  as  to  retain  those  values 
in  another  and  more  metaphysical  setting.  To  us 
to-day  the  lines  pursued  by  this  rapid  evolution  of 
ideas  give  the  impression  of  a  cold,  aprioristic  system. 
But  in  reahty  this  progress  of  Christian  life  towards 
a  better  formulation  of  itself  was  the  collective  work 
of  multitudes  who  "  lived  "  their  faith  in  thought  as 
well  as  in  word,  action,  and  feeling. 

Christology,  so  closely  bound  up  with  Trinitarian 
theology,  naturally  underwent  in  its  turn  a  parallel 
and  dependent  development.  The  Messianic  notion 
of  the  Son  of  David,  and  the  apocalyptic  notion  of 
One  who  was  to  appear  in  the  clouds,  and  the  title 
''Son  of  God,"  which  in  Hebrew  was  synonymous 
with  the  Messiah,  once  transferred  to  Greek  soil, 
where  parentage  between  gods  and  heroes  was  a 
common  belief,  opened  the  road  to  the  notion  of  a 
unique  relation  between  Christ  and  the  Father,  and 
even  of  an  identity  of  nature. 

Finally,  as  regards  the  organisation  of  the  Christ- 
ian communities,  they  had  come  by  the  beginning 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  85 

of  the  second  century  to  adopt  the  monarchic  episco- 
pate as  the  result  of  taking  over  certain  offices  and 
titles,  partly  from  the  synagogue,  partly  from  the 
Hellenistic  confraternities  and  societies. 

The  display  of  so  vigorous  a  development,  accom- 
plished in  the  bosom  of  the  communities  at  a  time 
when  the  empire  was  doing  its  best  to  stifle  the 
Gospel,  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  features  of 
early  Christian  history.  Not  only  was  persecution 
unable  to  crush  the  nascent  religion,  it  could  not 
even  arrest  that  healthy  effort  of  the  experience 
originated  by  Christ  to  evolve  from  itself  a  dog- 
matic formulation  and  an  authoritative  organisation 
by  which  to  feed  and  foster  the  new  Christian  con- 
science, and  to  enable  the  Church  to  provide  her 
ministers  with  a  creed  and  an  authority  for  the 
furtherance  of  her  spiritual  conquests.  As  soon  as 
the  last  persecution  had  proved  a  lamentable  fiasco, 
and  the  astute  Constantine  had  perceived  the  wis- 
dom of  attaching  his  fortunes  to  those  of  Christi- 
anity by  making  it  a  state  religion,  the  Church  was 
all  ready  for  that  first  impressive  display  of  her  ma- 
terial and  moral  force,  which  took  place  at  Nicea, 
where  the  Trinitarian  dogma  and  the  consubstan- 
tiality  of  the  Word  with  the  Father  were  solemnly 
defined.  Thus  at  Nicea  were  definitively  laid  the 
bases  of  that  structure  of  orthodox  thought  raised 
up  in  succeeding  centuries. 


86     The  Programme  of  Modernism 

Theological  conflicts  recommenced,  however,  very 
soon,  and  this  time  the  disputes  were  mainly  Christ- 
ological.  Apart  from  the  short-lived  Macedonian 
controversy  (settled  at  Constantinople)  about  the 
relation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  other  Divine  Per- 
sons, the  war  was  waged  over  the  relation  of  the 
human  and  divine  elements  united  in  the  person 
of  Christ.  It  is  remarkable  to  notice  the  jealous 
watchfulness  of  the  Christian  conscience,  lest  in  this 
search  for  a  formula  to  express  a  fact  beyond  the 
ordinary  range  of  human  comprehension  any  sacri- 
fice should  be  made  of  the  religious  experience  of 
Christ's  immanence  in  the  soul  or  of  His  redeeming 
efficacy.  Nestorianism  with  its  sharp  distinction  of 
two  persons  in  Christ,  human  and  divine,  implicitly 
imperilled  the  infinite  value  of  His  acts  and  so  was 
condemned  by  the  Council  of  Ephesus.  Eutyches 
went  to  the  opposite  extreme,  insisting  on  unity  of 
person  to  the  prejudice  of  duality  of  nature,  thus 
putting  the  imposing  figure  of  the  Redeemer  outside 
the  ranks  of  humanity,  and  so  was  condemned  at 
Chalcedon.  Thus  has  Catholic  dogma  threaded  its 
way  between  the  extremes  of  error,  being  the  intel- 
lectual expression  of  the  deepest  needs  of  the 
Christian  conscience,  which  seeks  in  Christ  at  once 
the  man  who  has  suffered  for  us  and  the  God  who 
has  merited  for  us. 

But  the  Church,  pushed  by  historical  events  into 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  87 

the  office  of  guide  and  controller  of  the  peoples  of 
the  West,  so  strangely  intermixed  alter  the  bar- 
baric invasion,  soon  felt  a  need  of  new  methods 
of  propaganda  and  government.  The  strife  with 
Monothelism  (the  last  disguised  remnant  of  the 
Monophysite  heresy)  is  only  a  secondary  episode  of 
Oriental  character  in  comparison  with  the  grave 
problem  facing  the  Church  in  the  midst  of  a  So- 
ciety reduced  to  intellectual  chaos  and  looking  to 
her  not  only  for  religious  instruction  but  also  for  the 
rudiments  of  philosophical  and  scientific  education. 
Henceforth  the  arena  of  intellectual  conflict  is  not 
theology,  properly  so  called,  but  philosophy,  or 
rather,  philosophical  apologetic.  In  the  Middle 
Ages,  in  a  Society  she  had  moulded  with  her  own 
hands  and  inspired  with  her  own  spirit,  the  Church's 
most  urgent  task  was  to  shape  or  to  adopt  a  phil- 
osophy which  might  serve  as  a  preparation  for  dog- 
ma, as  an  instrument  of  intellectual  and  even  moral 
discipline  in  every  department  of  life.  And  this  is 
just  why  the  Church,  at  the  beginning  of  the  me- 
diaeval philosophical  controversies,  turned  with  sym- 
pathy to  the  realistic  logic — although  rejecting  the 
metaphysic — of  Aristotle,  finding  therein  the  most 
effectual  formulation  of  a  mental  attitude  towards 
reality  in  harmony  with  the  requirements  of  the 
absolutist  conception  of  rehgion  and  those  of  a  theo- 
cratic use  of  moral  and  political  power.      Modern 


88      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

criticism  has  sought,  as  yet  without  full  success,  to 
call  up  from  the  past  the  various  attempts  made 
before  arriving  at  that  blend  of  Aristotle  and 
Christian  dogma  which  characterises  the  golden 
age  of  scholasticism.  The  problem  of  "  Univers- 
als,"  contained  in  a  text  of  Porphyry,  which  has 
reached  us  through  Boethius,  was  the  nucleus  of 
philosophic  inquiry.  The  first  essays  at  a  phil- 
osophical apologetic  were  made  in  the  Carlovingian 
schools,  but  with  a  result  contrary  to  the  Church's 
desire.  Scotius  Erigena  was  a  solitary  thinker  far 
too  deeply  saturated  with  a  mystical  individualism 
to  be  able  to  provide  the  society,  sheltered  under 
the  wings  of  the  Papacy  and  the  Empire,  with  the 
impersonal  and  absolute  formulas  of  a  satisfactory 
metaphysic.  But  the  attempt  which  failed  once  was 
renewed  with  that  courage  which  is  inspired  by  the 
needs  of  a  new  age.  Yet  how  many  failures  were 
necessary  before  arriving  at  a  harmonious  synthesis  ! 
The  nominalism  of  Roscelyn,  the  conceptualism  of 
Abelard,  the  realism  of  Bernard,  the  intuitionism  of 
the  S.  Victors  represent  so  many  currents  that  strove 
to  prevail  in  a  conflict  of  ideas  which  but  reflected 
those  real  conflicts  between  papal  and  imperial 
power  by  which  Society  was  torn  asunder.  Finally, 
coinciding  in  time  with  that  great  papal  theocracy 
which  was  the  fruit  of  centuries  of  political  effort, 
came   the    imposing    construction  of  scholasticism, 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  89 

in  which  philosophy  and  dogma  seemed  to  be  har- 
monised, and  whose  mission  it  was  apparently  to 
bind  intelligences  in  the  bonds  of  a  metaphysic 
which  was  in  reality  the  most  potent  instrument  of 
moral  domination  that  the  age  of  Innocent  III. 
could  have  possibly  desired. 

It  is  in  the  fact  that  scholasticism  was  begotten 
by  the  practical  needs  of  that  age — that  is,  by  the 
need  of  providing  a  philosophic  and  religious  syn- 
thesis which  should  tie  down  man's  spirit  in  a 
posture  of  humble  submission  in  matters  of  reason 
and  conduct — it  is  in  this  fact  that  criticism  finds 
the  chief  reason  of  the  sHght  historical  consciousness 
of  which  scholasticism  gives  evidence.  All  the 
patristic  sources,  all  the  expressions  of  Christian 
experience  fashioned  by  previous  generations,  are 
noticed  and  used  by  the  scholastic  divines  only  so 
far  as  they  serve  to  support  their  intellectual  posi- 
tions. Nowhere  do  we  find  signs  of  an  impartial 
inquiry  as  to  what  the  primitive  Christian  fact  was 
in  reality ;  nowhere  a  docile  acceptance  of  the  gen- 
uine data  of  patristic  tradition  whenever  these 
were  opposed  to  their  Aristotelian  prepossessions. 
Scholasticism  is  precisely  the  intellectual  expression 
of  the  Christian  experience  as  adapted  to  the  spir- 
itual needs  of  the  early  Middle  Ages.  And  this  is  why 
the  Papacy  has  clung  to  it  with  a  tenacity  worthy 
of  a  better  cause,  and  brought  about  its  canonisation 


go     The  Programme  of  Modernism 

at  the  Council  of  Trent.  It  recognises  instincuvely 
(though  not  avowedly)  in  scholasticism  the  most 
effectual  defence  of  that  age  in  which  its  own 
authority  reached  a  fulness  of  splendour  soon  after- 
wards lost  irreparably.  Even  to-day  it  would  fain 
rehabihtate  scholasticism.  But  how  is  it  possible 
to  revive  such  a  mode  of  apologetic  now  that  criti- 
cism has,  without  any  sort  of  prepossessions,  re- 
constructed the  whole  story  of  the  evolution  of 
Christianity  with  all  its  successive  stages  and  varie- 
ties of  expression  ?  Criticism  has  made  us  see  how 
Catholic  dogma  has  sprung  entirely  from  the  need 
of  setting  experience  in  harmony  with  the  mind  of 
the  age,  and  the  unchanging  spirit  of  religion  with 
the  ever-varying  expressions  of  thought.  How  can 
we  refuse  to  accept  these  conclusions  which  are  not 
the  result  of  hair-brained  speculation  but  of  a  most 
painstaking  analysis  of  Christian  documents  ?  If  the 
Church  needed  to  oppose  them  uncritically  with  the 
assumptions  of  the  Middle  Ages,  she  would  have  to 
face  disaster  and  bankruptcy.  But  there  is  no  such 
need.  Providentially  the  Church  has  not  yet  de- 
fined the  relations  between  her  immutabiHty  and 
her  flexibility.  And,  therefore,  we  who  believe  in 
the  harmony  of  faith  and  science,  and  who  therefore 
accept  the  results  of  criticism  as  well  as  that  meas- 
ure of  immutability  required  by  the  inherent  truth 
of  Christianity,  have  had   ret'ourse    to  certain  new 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  91 

apologetic  considerations  which  seem  to  us  to  pos- 
sess an  abundant  persuasiveness  in  the  eyes  of  our 
contemporaries.  We  have  been  able  to  show  how 
spontaneous  the  evolution  of  Christianity  has  been, 
and  yet  how  indispensable  it  has  seemed  at  every 
historical  crisis  for  the  preservation  of  Christian  piety, 
and  how,  without  it,  religion  would  have  been  per- 
verted, weakened,  and  perhaps  destroyed.  Whence 
it  follows  that  we  cannot  possibly  deny  the  evolu- 
tion of  Catholicism. 

As  we  cannot  refuse  the  results  (ever  more  or  less 
imperfect)  of  social  evolution,  so,  too,  the  whole 
process  of  Christian  development,  wrought  by  the 
Christian  consciousness  upon  the  religious  experi- 
ence of  the  Gospel,  strikes  us  as  something  legiti- 
mate in  itself  which  we  are  not  free  to  accept  or  re- 
fuse, since  in  refusing  it  we  should  dry  up  the  deep- 
est roots  of  our  spiritual  life.  And  even  if  certain 
modes  of  thought,  and  certain  conceptions  of  au- 
thority, transmitted  to  the  Church  from  the  Middle 
Ages,  seem  to  us  to  have  now  grown  to  be  encum- 
brances, we  do  not  believe  that  we  have,  as  in- 
dividuals, any  right  to  oppose  them,  but  only  to 
spread  abroad  among  the  masses  of  the  faithful  a  con- 
sciousness of  their  inutility  and  obstructiveness.  For 
a  higher  experience  and  expression  of  Catholicism 
must  be  the  fruits  of  a  more  enlightened,  more 
cultivated,  more  spiritual  collective  conscience.     It 


92      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

is  from  this  point  of  view  that  a  conciliation  of  the 
rights  of  criticism  with  the  deepest  needs  of  faith 
seems  possible  to  us.  Everything  in  the  history  of 
Christianity  has  changed — doctrine,  hierarchy,  wor- 
ship ;  but  all  these  changes  have  been  providential 
means  for  the  preservation  of  the  Gospel-spirit, 
which  has  remained  unchanged  through  the  ages. 
Of  course  the  scholastics  and  the  Fathers  at  Trent 
came  into  a  much  richer  theological  heritage  than 
the  Christians  of  the  first  century ;  but  the  religious 
experience,  that  in  virtue  of  which  they  were  Christ- 
ians, was  the  same  for  them  all.  And  for  us  to-day 
it  is  likewise  the  same,  although  it  moves  but  slowly 
towards  a  new  self-formulation,  owing  to  the  sway, 
no  longer  intellectual  but  simply  juridical,  of  scho- 
lasticism, which  has  won  the  surely  anomalous  posi- 
tion of  an  "  official"  philosophy.  The  formulations 
of  the  past  and  of  the  future  have  been,  and  will  be, 
equally  legitimate,  provided  they  faithfully  respect 
the  growing  needs  of  evangelical  piety,  ever  eager 
to  find  in  reflex  thought  a  better  instrument  for  its 
own  preservation  and  utterance. 

Reasoning  thus,  we  find  ourselves  undoubtedly  in 
harmony  with  one  of  the  fundamental  tendencies  of 
contemporary  philosophy,  and  which  is  even  con- 
sidered the  very  condition  of  the  possibility  of  a 
philosophy — the  immanental  tendency.  According 
to  this   principle,  nothing  can    enter  into   and   get 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  93 

hold  of  man's  spirit  that  does  not  spring  from  it 
and  in  some  way  correspond  to  its  need  of  self- 
expansion.  For  it  there  is  no  fixed  truth,  no  unal- 
terable precept,  that  is  not  in  some  way  self-imposed 
and  innate.  Applied  to  the  history  of  Christianity 
this  immanental  principal  provides  the  best  defence 
for  those  positions  which  the  Church  has  arrived  at 
in  obedience  to  the  constant  instigation  of  the  col- 
lective conscience. 

But  this  our  agreement  with  the  philosophy  of 
immanentism  has  not  preceded,  but  rather  followed 
upon,  the  effort  of  scientific  criticism  to  discern 
the  objective  evolution  of  Christianity  through  the 
darkness  of  the  past.  And  here  we  must  go  on  to 
discuss  the  philosophical  charges  which  the  Encyclical 
puts  down  to  our  account.  Are  they  accurate  ? 
And  where  they  are  partly  exact  are  they,  as  the 
Encyclical  contends,  anti-Catholic  ? 

SEC.    2.— THE    APOLOGETIC    OF    THE    MODERNISTS 
{a)  Are  we  Agnostics  ? 

Discussing  the  philosophy  of  the  Modernists,  the 
Encyclical  reprehends  its  agnostic  principles,  its 
immanental  method,  its  agnostic  application  to 
history  of  the  postulates  of  the  "  transfiguration  " 
and  "  disfiguration  "  of  phenomena. 

Let  us  speak,  first  of  all,  of  our  supposed  agnosti- 
cism.    It  is  based  on  the  idea,  says  the  Encyclical, 


94     The  Programme  of  Modernism 

"  that  human  reason  is  wholly  confined  to  the  region 
of  phenomena,  that  is,  to  what  appears,  and  to  the 
manner  of  its  appearance.  Beyond  that  it  has  no 
right,  no  natural  power,  to  go."  We  hope  to  make 
clear  the  contradiction  into  which  the  Encyclical 
falls  in  its  desire  to  prove  us  agnostics.  Indeed,  in 
the  very  same  paragraph  it  credits  us  with  opinions 
flatly  incompatible  with  agnosticism.  For  it  says 
that  "  they  "  [the  Modernists]  ''  have  settled  and 
determined  that  science  and  history  must  be  atheist- 
ical ; "  and  a  little  later  it  adds  that,  according  to 
Modernists,  "  religion,  whether  natural  or  super- 
natural, must,  like  every  other  fact,  admit  of  an 
explanation."  With  what  consistency  can  the  En- 
cyclical reproach  us  in  the  same  breath  with  an 
agnostic  prepossession  which  forbids  any  affirma- 
tions of  reason  about  the  super-phenomenal,  and 
also  with  an  atheistic  postulate  in  science  and  his- 
tory, and  with  the  principle  that  the  origin  and 
nature  of  religion  admit  of  an  explanation  ? 

But  let  us  overlook  these  little  slips  which  the 
compiler  of  the  document  has  made  in  the  em- 
barrassing task  of  squeezing  Modernism  into  the 
antiquated  categories  of  his  own  philosophy,  and  let 
us  examine  seriously  if  there  be  aught  of  agnosticism 
in  our  system.  And  let  us  begin  from  the  definition 
of  agnosticism  formulated  by  its  great  leader,  Her- 
bert Spencer.     His  conclusion,  expounded  and  de- 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  95 

fended  in  First  Principles^  is  as  follows :  *'  If  wc 
look  into  the  nature  and  value  of  religion  and 
science  we  find  in  the  former  certain  primary  ideas 
and  universally  present  elements,  and  in  the  latter 
certain  truths  not  deducible  from  other  truths,  and 
therefore  inexplicable.  So  that  at  the  basis  both  of 
religion  and  science  we  come  on  a  sort  of  neu- 
tral ground  which  evades  our  mental  analyses — on  a 
bundle  of  ideas  and  sentiments  which  we  cannot 
account  for.  On  this  ground,  faith  and  science  may 
and  should  be  reconciled.  We  should  acknowledge 
this  domain  of  the  '  Unknowable  '  ;  but  as  being 
such  we  should  carefully  refrain  from  every  sort  of 
irreverent  desire  to  penetrate  its  nature  or  to  deter- 
mine its  attributes  and  modes  of  action  by  our  puny 
metaphysical  speculations." 

Now  this  agnostic  confession  of  impotence  in  the 
face  of  the  mystery  of  the  universe  is  radically 
opposed  to  our  mind.  Our  apologetic  is  precisely 
an  attempt  to  escape  from  this  agnostic  knowledge- 
theory  by  rising  above  it ;  just  as  agnosticism  stands 
for  an  attempt  to  rise  above  materialistic  positivism. 
The  agnostic,  saturated  with  rationalistic  principles, 
can  imagine  no  other  forms  of  knowledge  than  the 
sense-experience  of  phenomena  and  the  dialectical 
reason  invoked  to  dissipate  the  formal  arguments  of 
religious  philosophy  in  defence  of  certain  theories 
about  the  origin  of  the  universe  and  its  dependence 


96      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

on  a  Supreme  Being.  As  Kant  had  revealed  the 
antinomies  of  the  cosmological,  the  psychological, 
and  the  theological  ideas,  so  Spencer,  by  means  of 
pure  argument,  has  tried  to  point  out  the  arbitrary 
and  aprioristic  elements  that  enter  into  all  our  meta- 
physical and  religious  explanations  of  the  real  ;  con- 
cluding that  there  is  a  basis  of  reality  impervious  to 
our  cognitive  faculties,  and  on  which  we  must  not 
trespass. 

Our  own  attitude  with  regard  to  knowledge  and 
its  value  is  radically  different,  and  not  only  coincides 
with  that  more  generally  assumed  by  the  philosophy 
of  to-day,  but  is  also  in  continuity  with  the  general 
results  of  the  criticism  of  science. 

First  of  all  we  distinguish  different  orders  of 
knowledge — phenomenal,  scientific,  philosophic,  re- 
ligious. Phenomenal  knowledge  embraces  all  sense- 
objects  in  their  particularity  ;  scientific  knowledge 
applies  its  calculations  to  the  various  groupings  of 
perceived  phenomena,  and  gives  expression  to  the 
constant  laws  of  their  changes  ;  philosophical  know- 
ledge is  the  interpretation  of  the  universe  according 
to  certain  inborn  categories  of  the  human  mind,  and 
having  regard  to  the  deep-seated,  unchanging  de- 
mands of  life  and  action ;  religious  knowledge,  in 
fine,  is  our  actual  experience  of  the  divine  which 
works  in  ourselves  and  in  the  whole  world. 

Naturally  this  does  away  with  the  old  definitions, 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  97 

inherited  by  scholasticism  from  certain  classical 
sources,  by  which  science  was  conceived  as  "the 
knowledge  of  an  object  according  to  its  causes  — 
efficient,  final,  material,  and  formal,"  and  philosophy 
as  "  the  knowledge  of  things  human  and  divine  in 
their  ultimate  causes."  But  it  is  not  our  fault  that 
the  philosophy  of  science  has,  on  its  part,  demon- 
strated how  much  pure  convention  there  is  in  every 
science ;  or  if  psychological  analysis,  in  its  turn,  has 
shown  the  subjective  and  personal  elements  which 
contribute  to  the  formation  of  abstract  knowledge. 
So  that  to-day  it  is  no  longer  possible  to  speak  of  a 
cognitive  faculty  which  functions  in  complete  inde- 
pendence of  our  subjective  needs  and  interests,  and 
arrives  at  a  certainty  and  a  truth  which  is  "  an  equa- 
tion of  thought  to  thing"  {adaequatio  rei  et  intel- 
lectus).  To-day  speculation  is  recognised  to  be  a  sort 
of  action,  in  the  more  general  sense  of  the  term,  and 
to  be  subservient  to  action.  The  act  of  knowledge 
is  the  result  of  a  laborious  effort  of  the  spirit  to 
dominate  reality  and  turn  it  to  its  own  service  by 
aid  of  certain  mental  schemata,  or  plans,  in  which  it 
represents  the  useful  relations  and  connections  of 
objects. 

Such  a  conception  is  liberating  in  the  broadest 
sense.  Considering  the  cognitive  faculty  as  a  func- 
tion of  man's  whole  inward  life ;  always  remember- 
ing the  relation  of  strict  solidarity  between  abstract 


98      The  Programme  of  Modernism 

thought  and  action  ;  breaking  down  the  fictitious 
barriers  raised  between  thought  and  will  by  scholas- 
tic psychology,  we  contrive  to  give  an  enormous 
expansion  to  the  region  of  ''the  knowable,"  and  to 
show  that  man  is  able,  although  by  forms  of  know- 
ledge hitherto  little  appreciated,  to  attain  to  those 
higher  realities,  the  intimate  apprehension  of  which 
augments  the  value  of  life  and  enriches  it  with  new 
possibilities.  Just  as  science,  by  its  combination  of 
experiment  with  the  laws  of  the  calculus,  extends 
our  dominion  over  the  physical  world,  and  as  meta- 
physics corresponds  to  the  necessity  of  guiding  our 
action  by  a  fixed  conception  of  the  universe,  so  the 
needs  of  our  moral  life,  and  that  experience  of  the 
divine  which  we  possess  in  the  hidden  depths  of  our 
consciousness,  issue  in  a  special  sense  of  spiritual 
realities  which  dominates  the  whole  of  our  ethical 
existence. 

For  us  it  matters  little  to  attain  to  God  through 
the  demonstrations  of  mediaeval  metaphysics  or 
through  arguments  from  miracles  and  prophecies, 
which  offend  rather  than  impress  the  modern  mind, 
and  evade  the  control  of  experience.  We  recognise 
in  ourselves  other  powers  of  divine  knowledge ;  we 
find  in  ourselves  that  inferential  sense,  of  which 
Newman  speaks,  by  which  we  can  be  assured  of  the 
presence  of  higher  and  ineffably  mysterious  powers 
with  which  we  are  in  direct  contact.      Compared 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  99 

with  this  knowledge-theory  of  ours,  agnosticism 
seems,  as  in  fact  it  is,  a  cold,  rationalistic  system. 
We  accept  that  criticism  of  pure  reason  which  Kant 
and  Spencer  have  made ;  but  far  from  falling  back, 
like  Kant,  on  the  aprioristic  witness  of  the  practical 
reason,  or  from  ending,  like  Spencer,  in  the  affirma- 
tion of  an  **  Unknowable,"  we  maintain  the  existence 
of  other  powers  in  the  human  spirit,  every  bit  as  re- 
liable as  the  argumentative  reason,  for  attaining  to 
truth.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  our  postulates  are 
inspired  by  the  principles  of  immanentism,  for  they 
all  assume  that  the  subject  is  not  purely  passive  in 
its  processes  of  knowledge  and  in  its  religious  ex- 
periences, but  brings  forth  from  its  own  spiritual 
nature  both  the  witness  to  a  higher  reality  intui- 
tively perceived  and  the  abstract  formulation  of  the 
same. 

But  is  this  principle  of  vital  immanence  so  dan- 
gerous as  the  Encyclical  seems  to  believe  ? 

(d)  Our  Immanentism 

"  Since — according  to  the  Modernists — religion  is 
nothing  but  a  form  of  life,  its  explanation  is  to  be 
found  precisely  in  the  life  of  man.  Hence  their 
principle  of  religious  immanence.  Furthermore,  the 
first  movement  of  every  vital  phenomenon,  such  as 
religion  is  said  to  be,  is  always  to  be  ascribed  to 
a  certain    need  or  impulse ;    speaking,  then,  more 


loo    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

especially  of  the  life  of  religion,  its  beginnings  are 
to  be  ascribed  to  a  certain  sentiment  or  stirring 
of  the  heart."  Even  allowing  for  the  unavoidable 
travesty  to  which  our  thought  is  subjected,  owing  to 
the  attempt  to  express  it  in  the  categories  of  scho- 
lasticism, we  recognise  that  these  are,  in  substance, 
our  ideas  upon  the  origin  of  religion.  Religion 
is  shown  to  be  the  spontaneous  result  of  irrepressible 
needs  of  man's  spirit,  which  find  satisfaction  in  the 
inward  and  emotional  experience  of  the  presence  of 
God  within  us.  In  maintaining  this  are  we  in  con- 
flict with  tradition  ?     Let  us  see. 

We  must  recognise,  first  of  all,  that  the  arguments 
for  the  existence  of  God,  drawn  by  scholastic  meta- 
physic  from  change  and  movement,  from  the  finite 
and  contingent  nature  of  things,  from  the  degrees  of 
perfection,  and  from  the  design  and  purpose  of  the 
world,  have  lost  all  value  nowadays.  The  concep- 
tions on  which  these  arguments  rest  have  now, 
owing  to  the  post-Kantian  criticism  both  of  abstract 
and  empirical  sciences  and  of  philosophical  language, 
lost  that  character  of  absoluteness  which  they  pos- 
sessed for  the  mediaeval  Aristotelians.  Since  the 
mere  conventionality  of  every  abstract  representa- 
tion of  reality  has  been  demonstrated,  it  is  clear  not 
only  that  such  arguments  fall  to  pieces  but  that  it  is 
idle  to  construct  others  of  the  same  class.  Hence  it 
was  natural  to  have  recourse  to  the  testimony  of 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  loi 

conscience  in  order  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of 
God,  or  rather,  to  justify  our  faith  in  the  divine. 
Thus  an  appeal  was  made  to  man's  moral  impulses, 
which,  for  the  rest,  are  the  most  authorised  wit- 
nesses in  this  matter,  since  the  origin  of  religion  is  a 
fact  of  conscience  and  should  be  investigated  ac- 
cordingly. Such  a  mode  of  procedure  is  not  only 
fully  justified  in  itself,  but  has  been  held  legitimate 
by  the  most  illustrious  representatives  of  Catholic 
teaching. 

The  judgment,  "  God  exists,"  is,  like  every  other 
judgment,  either  analytic  or  synthetic,  or,  to  speak 
not  with  Kant  but  with  the  scholastics,  is  either 
necessary  or  contingent.  But  an  affirmation  of 
existence  cannot  be  an  analytical  judgment;  that  is 
the  notion  expressed  by  the  predicate  ("  exists ") 
cannot,  of  itself,  form  part  of  the  notion  expressed 
by  the  subject.  It  must,  therefore,  be  a  synthetic 
judgment ;  and  since  Catholic  philosophy  does  not 
admit  judgments  called  synthetic  a  priori,  we  must 
conclude  that  it  is  synthetic  a  posteriori,  that  is,  a 
judgment  to  be  proved  by  experience  and  not  by 
mere  reflection.  And  since,  in  this  case,  there  can 
plainly  be  no  question  of  laboratory  experiments, 
we  must  conclude  that  God's  existence  can  be 
proved  only  by  conscience  and  in  the  experiences  of 
conscience.  We  are  therefore  perfectly  logical  in 
seeking  to  ground  our  affirmation  of  a  transcendent 


I02    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

divinity  on  the  immanent  needs  of  man's  conscience, 
and  in  striving  to  follow  up  the  deep  aspirations  and 
ever-recurring  necessities  which  spur  the  will  to 
raise  itself  with  all  its  might  towards  God,  who,  as  S. 
Augustine  says,  already  works  in  us  creating  this 
desire  to  seek  Him.  So  reasoning  we  are  in  perfect 
harmony  with  the  scholastic  as  well  as  with  the 
patristic  tradition.  The  latter,  more  especially  con- 
sidering Aristotellanism  fatal  to  the  profession  of 
Christian  orthodoxy,"^  considered  faith  quite  suffi- 
cient for  itself  and  independent  of  philosophy.  The 
former,  although  characterised  by  the  predominance 
of  realistic  logic  over  mystical  intuition,  never  forgot 
the  moral  argument  when  it  wanted  to  prove  the 
existence,  the  value,  the  purpose  of  spiritual  reali- 
ties.    A  few  examples  will  show  this. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  the  Stroniata^  shows  at 
length  that  the  origin  of  things  cannot  be  found  by 
demonstration,  but  only  by  the  spontaneous  faith  of 
the  spirit  which,  instead  of  seeking  God  in  the 
abstract  principles  of  reason,  should  strive  to  acquire 
that  self-discipline  and  strength  which  spring  from 
the  practice  of  the  great  virtues — charity,  penitence, 
etc.     Faith,  he  adds,  is  as  needful  for  man  as  breath- 


*  "  That  miserable  Aristotle  who  teaches  the  heretics  a  subtle 
dialectic  which  can  say  and  unsay, — shifting  in  its  conclusions,  harsh 
in  its  arguments,  fruitful  of  barren  wranglings,  a  nuisance  even  to 
itself,  ever  retracting  just  because  it  treats  nothing  thoroughly." 
De  Praescr. .  vii. 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  103 

ing  is  for  life.  Without  faith  no  knowledge  of  the 
divine  is  possible.  God  is  the  object  not  of  science 
but  of  faith.  And  man's  spirit  is  pervaded  by  a 
divine  and  mysterious  effluence  (L.  ii.). 

Far  more  explicit  are  the  declarations  of  Tertul- 
lian,  who  invokes  in  favour  of  Christianity,  not 
philosophical  systems  and  abstract  theories,  but  the 
spontaneous  testimony  of  the  human  soul:^  "  Stand 
out  before  me,  O  Soul.  If,  as  so  many  philosophers 
say,  thou  art  a  thing  eternal  and  divine  thou  surely 
wilt  not  lie.  If  thou  art  a  thing  human  and  mortal, 
still  less  wilt  thou  lie  in  favour  of  a  God  who  is  no 
part  of  thee.  I  do  not  appeal  to  thee  as  trained  in 
the  schools,  brought  up  among  books,  stuffed  with 
academic  learning.  I  call  upon  thee  as  simple  and 
rude,  as  ignorant  and  uncultured,  even  as  thou  art 
possessed  by  those  whose  sole  riches  thou  art.  For 
I  need  thy  very  deficiencies."  And  it  is  from  this 
unsophisticated  soul,  as  it  reveals  itself  prior  to  all 
instruction  and  cultivation,  that  TertuUian  demands 
a  spontaneous  and  unforced  testimony  in  favour  of 
Christianity.  From  its  natural  language,  from  its 
most  ordinary  movements,  from  its  commonest 
aspirations,  this  great  apologist  draws  a  triumphant 
argument  for  the  humanity,  and  therefore  for  the 
truth,  of  the  Gospel  message.* 

Origen    says   that   "  the    rational    soul   as   it    re- 

*  De  Tert.  An.^  c.  i.,  et passim. 


I04    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

cognises  its  own  nature  comes  to  withdraw  itself 
from  those  objects  which  at  first  it  had  accounted 
gods ;  it  conceives  a  natural  love  of  its  Creator,  and 
following  up  this  love,  it  takes  for  its  Master  Him 
who  first  revealed  this  doctrine  to  men  and  who  to 
that  end  made  use  of  disciples  whom  He  had  duly- 
fitted  for  the  work."  * 

But  the  Father  who  has  most  persistently  ap- 
pealed to  the  direct  witness  of  the  Spirit  in  favour 
of  man's  inward  experience  of  the  divine  is  S. 
Augustine.  His  saying,  ''Thou  hast  made  us  for 
Thyself  and  our  heart  is  restless  till  it  rest  in  Thee," 
is  well  known.  His  Confessions  —  that  wonderful 
epopea  of  the  transformation  of  a  soul  under  the 
inward  stimulus  of  the  divine — abound  with  phrases 
alluding  to  that  demonstration  of  God  which  every 
man  can  draw  from  the  personal  experiences  of  his 
own  interior  life.  He  speaks  of  the  "  wondrous  and 
secret  ways  "  by  which  God  makes  the  soul  aware 
of  Him  (v.  6,  7,  13),  and  he  gathers  up  his  own  ex- 
periences in  this  wise  :  "  Thou,  O  Lord,  by  a  mys- 
terious instinct,  dost  lead  men  unawares  to  hear  and 
to  perceive  that  which  pertains  to  their  uplifting  " 
(vii.  6.) 

Last  of  all,  S.  Thomas  himself,  though  drawn  to 
metaphysical  speculations  and  full  of  trust  in  argu- 
mentative reasoning,  allows  due  demonstrative  value 

*  Cojitra  Celsum^  iii.,  40. 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  105 

to  the  living  aspirations  of  conscience  and  to  the 
deeper  needs  of  the  spirit.  He  constantly  affirms 
that  "  a  natural  desire  can  never  be  a  delusion  "  (I.  q. 
Ixxv.  a.  6;  CG.  ii.  55;  iii.  51).  Even  the  genuine 
scholastic  tradition,  far  from  holding  that  the  moral 
argument  is  worthless  or  leads  to  subjectivism,  uses 
it  in  its  nicer  demonstrations,  such  as  those  of  the 
freedom  of  the  will  and  the  immortality  of  the 
soul.  In  fact  it  rests  these  two  theses,  so  funda- 
mental for  Christian  spirituality,  solely  on  the  argu- 
ment from  the  testimony  of  conscience. 

Thus  we  can  maintain  that  our  position  as  regards 
the  proof  of  God  is  perfectly  coherent  with  the  best 
Christian  tradition.  Led  as  we  are  by  the  theory  of 
sciences  to  a  revision  of  all  our  empirical  notions ; 
enlightened  as  we  have  been  by  descriptive  psycho- 
logy as  to  the  origin  and  value  of  abstract  ideas  in  a 
way  diametrically  opposite  to  the  scholastic  theory 
of  the  intellectus  agens  and  the  intellectus  possibilis ; 
persuaded  henceforth  beyond  doubt  as  to  the 
natural  conventions  that  enter  into  all  our  meta- 
physical conceptions  of  the  real,  we  can  no  longer 
accept  a  demonstration  of  God  supported  by  those 
"  idols  of  the  tribe  " — the  Aristotelian  conceptions 
of  motion,  of  causality,  of  contingency,  of  finality. 
We  believe,  moreover,  it  is  better  for  the  Christian 
conscience  to  allow  explicitly  that  if  the  demonstra- 
tion of  God  is  essentially  bound  up  with  these  con- 


io6    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

ceptions  then  indeed  criticism  has  definitively  paved 
the  way  to  atheism,  but  at  the  same  time  to  affirm 
with  the  fullest  conviction  that  there  is  another 
method  of  demonstrating  that  truth,  the  chief  argu- 
ment of  all — older  than  scholasticism — the  argument 
of  the  living  and  acting  spirit  which,  amid  all  the 
contingencies  of  its  surface  life,  bears  in  itself  a  rest- 
less hunger  for  the  divine,  and  comes  to  live  a  more 
noble  life  only  on  condition  of  recognising  this  hun- 
ger and  satisfying  it  with  the  religious  experience 
that  its  surroundings  and  historical  setting  naturally 
impose  upon  it. 

{c)  Characteristics  and  Consequences  of  our 
Iinnianentism 

We  are  therefore  immanentists.  But  immanent- 
ism  is  not  that  terrible  evil  which  the  Encyclical 
seems  to  suppose,  but  is  the  method  followed  by 
the  best  Christian  tradition  in  quest  of  the  divine. 
We  must  insist  on  this  point  to  defend  ourselves 
against  certain  undeserved  rebukes  administered  to 
us  by  the  Encyclical. 

(i)  First  of  all  it  tries  to  show  an  imaginary  con- 
tradiction between  our  views  and  certain  definitions 
of  the  Vatican  Council  which  say :  "  If  any  assert 
that  the  one  and  true  God,  our  Creator  and  Lord, 
cannot  be  known  with  certainty  by  the  light  of 
man's  natural  reason,  arguing  from  things  created, 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  107 

let  him  be  anathema."  And  again  :  **  If  any  assert 
that  divine  revelation  cannot  be  made  credible  by 
external  signs,  and  that  therefore  men  should  not  be 
moved  to  believe,  except  by  inward  experience  and 
private  inspiration,  let  him  be  anathema."  " 

Premising  that  the  guiding  Providence  which 
shapes  the  Church's  history  takes  care  that  the  doc- 
trinal formulas,  devised  at  a  particular  crisis  to  meet 
the  passing  religious  needs  of  the  community  at  that 
time,  are  expressed  with  sufficient  latitude  not  to  be 
an  obstacle  to  later  requirements  of  the  spirit,  we 
reply  that  our  views  are  quite  reconcilable  with  the 
Vatican  definitions. 

As  regards  the  first  definition,  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
our  contemporary  idea  of  **  the  natural  light  of  rea- 
son "  is  quite  different  from  that  of  scholasticism. 
It  is  impossible  for  us  of  to-day  to  conceive  a  purely 
intellectual  and  speculative  faculty,  immune  from  all 
influence  of  the  will  and  the  emotions.  To  the  latest 
psychology,  reason  seems  more  and  more  to  be  a 
sort  of  instrument  of  formulation  and  definition 
which  human  nature  has  instinctively  fashioned  for 
itself,  and  which  it  uses  unconsciously  in  order  to 
arrange,  express,  and  control  the  experiences  of  the 
more  elementary  and  universal  faculties  of  will  and 
feeling  and  external  sensation. 

The  human  subject  is  viewed  now  as  a  complexus 

*  De  Rev.,  i.  and  De  Fid,,  iii. 


io8    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

of  energies  of  which  each  tends  to  the  fullest  possible 
self-expression  in  the  daily  expansion  of  life.  For 
us  reason  does  not  exist  as  something  abstract  and 
apart.  It  exists  only  as  a  function  of  the  Instinctive 
faculties  whose  wants  and  successes  it  registers  and 
classifies  for  future  use.  Undoubtedly  the  Thomistic 
theologians  who  formulated  the  above  definition  at 
the  Vatican  Council  meant  to  say  that  the  know- 
ledge of  God  is  attainable  by  the  pure  understand- 
ing working  on  our  sense-impressions  of  the  universe 
and  arguing  thence,  syllogistically,  to  the  existence 
of  a  first  cause.  But  this  does  not  hinder  a  mind, 
forced  into  agreement  with  the  indisputable  results 
of  contemporary  thought  from  declining  to  accept 
the  definition  in  its  scholastic  sense,  and  taking  it  to 
mean  that  from  the  knowledge  of  itself  and  its  own 
inward  experiences  (which  are  created  things)  the 
human  spirit  in  its  entirety  (including  reason,  will, 
and  feeling),  can  naturally  arrive  at  a  living  certainty 
of  the  existence  of  God.  And  amongst  these  means 
of  knowledge,  taken  in  the  widest  sense,  we  must 
also  set  that  quite  indefinable  experience  of  a  divine 
impulse  which  reaches  us,  as  members  of  a  social 
organism,  through  past  ages  of  collective  religious 
life,  and  of  an  aspiration  towards  that  fuller  sense  of 
a  transcendent  divinity  which  will  be  reahsed  by  the 
religious  generations  of  the  future. 

As  for  the  second  Vatican  definition,  we  fail  to 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  109 

see  where  we  are  in  conflict  with  it.  In  the  first 
place,  it  does  not  speak  of  faith  in  God  but  of  rev- 
elation ;  that  is,  of  a  positive  fact  which  we  have 
already  tried  to  explain  in  accordance  with  a  critical 
study  of  those  documents  in  which,  as  the  Church 
teaches  us,  revelation  is  contained.  That  this  reve- 
lation can  only  be  transmitted  by  external  signs  is 
beyond  question.  But  this  does  not  alter  the  fact 
that  our  adhesion  to  those  supernatural  realities, 
which  are  the  theme  and  argument  of  the  said  reve- 
lation is  a  result  of  internal  experience.  In  this 
connection  S.  Thomas  writes  :  '*  The  teacher  is  not 
the  cause  either  of  the  intellectual  light  or  of  the 
intellectual  representations  in  the  mind  of  the 
learner.  But  by  means  of  his  instruction  he  stimu- 
lates the  learner  to  form  within  himself,  and  by  the 
energy  of  his  own  intelligence,  those  conceptions 
whose  verbal  symbols  have  been  presented  to  him 
by  the  teacher."*  We  can  apply  this  illuminating 
reflection  to  the  words  of  the  Council.  Sacred  tradi- 
tion communicates  to  us  those  external  signs  in 
which  revelation  has  been  recorded.  The  human 
mind  ought  not  to  remain  passively  receptive  and 
inert  in  regard  to  them,  because  the  religious  expe- 
rience, which  they  are  designed  to  evoke,  proceeds 
from  the  needs  and  interests  of  the  spirit,  and  from 
the  synchronous  vibration  of  our  whole  moral  being 

*S.  T.,p.  i.  q.  117,  a.  I. 


no    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

with  the  divine  word  which  is  revealed,  or  reveals 
itself,  through  these  outward  symbols. 

(2)  None  the  less,  the  EncycHcal  accuses  us  of 
"scientific  and  historical  atheism,"/.^.,  of  holding 
that  science  and  history  should  ignore  the  existence 
of  God.  How  little  this  taUies  with  the  charge  of 
pseudo-mysticism  is  self-evident.  Furthermore,  it 
is  an  open  absurdity,  as  we  shall  now  show. 

That  only  phenomena  come  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  science  and  history  is  not  our  discovery,  but 
the  admission  of  all  scientists  and  historians  worthy 
the  name  who  follow  those  methods  and  canons 
which  scientific  research  now  considers  definitively 
established.  Science  and  history  aim  at  ascertaining 
facts  and  at  indicating,  as  far  as  possible,  the  constant 
relations  which  obtain  between  the  phenomena  veri- 
fied in  the  various  fields  of  observation.  But  in 
making  use,  in  their  research,  of  the  instruments  at 
their  disposal — experience,  or  artificial  experiment 
in  physics;  documentary  analysis  in  history — they 
are,  or  they  ought  to  be,  free  from  any  sort  of  apolo- 
getic preoccupation.  This  science  (of  which  history 
is  now  but  a  branch)  is  neither  theist  nor  atheist ;  it 
is  if  worthy  of  the  name,  simply  science.  It  is  not 
we  who  have  made  it  what  it  is.  We  have  only 
accepted  it  and  made  use  of  it  as  being  an  impartial 
investigation  of  facts,  and  of  facts  only.  Hence  the 
reproaches  of  the  Encyclical  are  somewhat  astonish- 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  1 1 1 

ing.  Is  it  not  a  received  theological  axiom  that  faith 
and  science,  as  two  rays  from  the  same  divine  light, 
cannot  contradict  one  another?  This  surely  does 
not  mean  that  faith  is  in  harmony  merely  with  a 
science  expurgated  ad  iistmi  Delphini.  That  would 
be  an  insult  to  the  divine  veracity.  And  therefore, 
being  perfectly  certain  of  an  ultimate  accord  of  faith 
and  science,  we  should  adopt,  so  to  say,  the  most 
scientific  science,  that,  namely,  which  is  freest  from 
all  apologetic  bias.  And  so  we  are  not  atheists  in 
science  but  lovers  of  that  true  science  which  is 
indifferent  to  all  those  ultra-phenomenal  problems, 
whose  solution  concerns  the  other  faculties  of  man's 
spirit. 

And  when  in  fact  we  go  beyond  the  territory  of 
pure  science,  impelled  by  our  need  of  faith  in  the 
divine,  we  see  how  the  results  of  our  scientific  re- 
search are  quickened  by  a  new  spirit  and  acquire 
far  more  precious  and  significant  values.  We  see  then 
in  the  world  of  physical  phenomena  a  progressive 
expression  of  goodness,  and  we  draw  thence  a  firm 
faith  in  a  higher  principle,  to  which  we  cleave 
as  to  a  Father  who  arranges  providentially  for  the 
triumphant  survival  of  the  most  serviceable  elements 
of  general  existence.  And  in  the  world  of  history 
we  see  an  all-present  Will  whose  secret  influence 
directs  the  moral  progress  of  mankind.  Thereupon 
the  negative  results  of  our  criticism  vanish  before 


112    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

the  strong  affirmations  of  religious  intuition.  Criti- 
cism has  destroyed  the  belief  in  the  formal  trans- 
mission of  a  primitive  revelation.  But  beyond 
criticism  there  is  a  faculty  which  sees  "  in  the  Jewish 
religion  a  principle  of  life  which  may  justly  be  called 
superhuman,  and  which,  notwithstanding  the  limita- 
tions of  knowledge,  the  seeming  illusions  of  hope, 
the  resistances  of  rationalism,  of  ritualistic  customs, 
of  theological  inflexibility,  tends  to  an  ever  more  per- 
fect self-expansion — a  principle  frail  in  appearance 
but  formidable  in  reality.  It  is  in  truth  that  little 
stone  which,  striking  against  the  base  of  the  colossal 
statue  of  earthly  empires  and  religions,  has  reduced 
them  to  dust,  and  has,  in  its  own  turn,  grown  to  that 
great  mountain  upon  which  the  whole  human  race 
can  find  standing-room."  *  Faith  sees  a  continuous 
revelation  from  the  Old  to  the  New  Testament  by 
which  the  divine  manifests  itself  more  and  more  un- 
mistakably. It  matters  little  to  faith  whether  or  no 
criticism  can  prove  the  virgin-birth  of  Christ,  His 
more  striking  miracles,  or  even  His  resurrection ; 
whether  or  no  it  sanctions  the  attribution  to  Christ 
of  certain  dogmas  or  of  the  direct  institution  of  the 
Church.  As  ultra-phenomenal,  these  former  facts 
evade  the  grasp  of  experimental  and  historical  criti- 
cism, while  of  the  latter  it  finds,  as  a  fact,  no  proof. 
But  both  these  and  those  possess  a  reality  for  faith 

*  Loisy,  La  Religion  a  Israel,  p.  88. 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  113 

superior  to  that  of  physical  and  historical  facts. 
Without  them,  without  such  an  expression  of  ulti- 
mate moral  values,  Christian  religious  experience 
would  have  lacked  one  of  its  most  solid  supports.  In 
the  entire  psychological  elaboration  to  which  the 
faith  of  centuries  has  submitted  the  simple  elements 
of  the  Gospel,  faith  sees  no  ordinary  or  natural  effect, 
but  one  dependent  on  the  assistance  of  that  Divine 
Spirit  which  has  fostered  the  life  of  Christianity 
from  the  beginning.  The  dogmas  shaped  by  the 
abstract  formulation  of  Christian  experience,  the 
Church  organised  by  the  needs  of  the  community  of 
the  faithful,  the  sacraments  sprung  from  the  need 
of  attaching  to  external  symbols  the  remembrance 
of  the  work  of  redemption,  and  of  sharing  its  immor- 
tal fruits  by  means  suited  to  man's  double  nature  of 
sense  and  spirit — all  these  seem  to  us  indispensable 
for  the  uniting  together  of  souls  in  one  and  the 
same  religious  life. 

We  unite  ourselves  to  all  the  faithful  in  the  same 
creed  and  the  same  ceremonies,  knowing  that  these 
bind  us  by  historical  continuity  with  the  work  of 
Christ,  and  are  the  means  by  which  the  adherents  of 
Catholicism  are  bound  together  in  one  and  the  same 
collective  moral  experience.  And  even  if  we  could 
turn  back  to  a  simpler  and  more  direct  experience  of 
Christianity,  and  could  dispense  with  much  that  has 
been  transmitted  to  us,  yet  our  Catholic  sentiment 


114    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

would  forbid  us  to  break  with  ancient  and  universal 
customs,  even  while  prudently  disseminating  our 
simplification  of  the  experience  for  which  they 
stand. 

This  way  of  conceiving  the  legitimacy  of  the 
development  of  Christianity  is  rebuked  by  the 
Encyclical  as  subjectivism  and  symbolism.  But 
subjectivism  and  symbolism  can  no  longer  be  re- 
proaches. The  latest  criticism  of  the  various  know- 
ledge-theories points  to  everything  in  the  realm  of 
knowledge — the  laws  of  science  and  the  theories 
of  metaphysics — as  being  subjective  and  symbolic. 
But  this  does  not  hinder  every  such  creation  of  the 
human  spirit  in  the  various  departments  of  its 
activity  from  having  an  absolute  value.  Also  the 
world  constructed  by  faith  has  its  life-giving  value, 
and  is  therefore  something  absolute  in  its  own  kind. 
As  for  symbolism,  a  symbol  no  longer  means  a 
fictitious,  and  perhaps  fraudulent,  substitution  con- 
nected with  ignorant  or  erroneous  beliefs.  It  too  is 
a  reality  of  its  own  peculiar  kind  whereon  faith  con- 
fers an  inestimable  value  by  which  it  becomes  the 
real  vehicle  and  beneficent  occasion  of  an  uplifting 
of  the  spirit  and  of  a  deeper  religious  insight.  And 
since  our  own  life  is — for  each  one  of  us — something 
absolute,  nay,  the  only  absolute  of  our  direct  ex- 
perience, all  that  proceeds  from  it  and  returns  to 
it,  all  that  feeds  it  and  expands   it  more  fruitfully, 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  115 

has,  in  like  manner,  the  value  of  something  absolute. 
The  point  of  the  Encyclical's  reproach  is  therefore 
blunted  in  these  days. 

{d)   Transfiguration  and  Disfiguration 

With  these  terms  the  Encyclical  designates  the 
consequences  which  Modernists,  as  it  conceives  them, 
ought  to  draw  from  the  application  of  their  so-called 
agnosticism  to  history. 

"  The  Unknowable  they  speak  of  does  not  present 
itself  to  faith  as  something  solitary  and  isolated,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  in  close  conjunction  with  some 
other  phenomenon  which,  though  it  belongs  to  the 
realms  of  science  and  history,  yet  to  some  extent 
exceeds  their  limits.  Thereupon  faith,  attracted  by 
the  *  Unknowable  '  concealed  under  the  phenomenal, 
takes  entire  possession  of  the  phenomenon  itself, 
and  permeates  it  to  some  extent  with  its  own  life. 
Hence  two  consequences.  First,  a  sort  of  'trans- 
figuration '  of  the  phenomenon  by  what  we  may 
describe  as  an  elevation  above  its  proper  conditions 
which  renders  it  apt  material  for  the  divine  form 
which  faith  is  to  bestow  upon  it.  Secondly,  a  cer- 
tain *  disfiguration,'  as  it  may  be  called,  of  the  same 
phenomenon,  arising  from  the  fact  that  faith  at- 
tributes to  it,  when  stripped  of  the  circumstances  of 
place  and  time,  characteristics  which  it  really  does 
not  possess." 


ii6    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

Let  us  pass  over  agnosticism,  of  which  we  have 
already  spoken,  and  the  "  Unknowable,"  of  which  no 
Modernist  speaks,  and  let  us  come  to  that  constant 
and  ever-increasing  alteration  of  historical  reality 
which  Modernists  are  said  by  the  Encyclical  to 
ascribe  to  the  influence  of  faith.  The  reproach  seems 
to  rest  on  an  equivocation.  This  alteration  of  the 
object,  due  to  the  faith  which  invests  it,  is  either 
confined  to  the  order  of  our  knowledge,  in  which 
case  it  is  simply  undeniable ;  or  it  extends  to  the 
order  of  ontological  reality,  in  which  case  we  deny 
it  as  vehemently  as  does  the  Encyclical,  which  com- 
mits an  unpardonable  equivocation  in  not  distin- 
guishing between  these  two  orders.     Let  us  explain. 

It  is  undeniable  that  an  historical  fact  assumes 
ever  larger  proportions  and  ever  deeper  significance 
in  the  accounts  of  it  transmitted  from  generation  to 
generation  of  individuals  interested  in  its  ethical  and 
religious  values.  Just  because  the  practical  conse- 
quences and  the  countless  applications  of  that  fact 
to  man's  moral  life  cannot  at  once  be  drawn  out  and 
illustrated,  it  needs  a  long  time  before  men  can 
clearly  penetrate  its  whole  vital  significance.  But 
this  does  not  mean  that  the  deeper  and  later  ex- 
periences of  its  significance  are  something  ontologi- 
cally  new  or  were  not  already  contained  potentially 
in  the  fact  itself. 

We  allow  that  in  relation  to  our  knowledge   of 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  117 

them  those  historical  facts  which  are  also  themes  of 
faith  undergo  a  vigorous  elaboration  by  which  they 
take  on  appearances  which  they  did  not  at  first 
present.  The  Christ  of  faith,  for  example,  is  very 
different  from  the  Christ  of  history.  From  the 
latter,  faith  has  taken  the  nucleus  and  suggestion  of 
a  mystical  and  theological  reconstruction  ever  higher 
and  more  comprehensive.  But  we  must  not  sup- 
pose that  from  an  ontological  point  of  view  the 
historical  Christ  did  not  include  those  ethical  values 
and  those  religious  meanings  which  Christian  experi- 
ence, by  living  the  Gospel  life,  has  slowly  become 
aware  of. 

An  example  will  clear  our  meaning.  The  mathe- 
matician, as  such,  may  fail  to  perceive  a  harmony 
which  is  evident  to  the  musician,  but  this  does  not 
mean  that  the  harmony  is  not  real  or  that  the  musi- 
cian has  created  it.  The  musician  finds  it  where  the 
other  fails  to  find  it.  So  in  our  case.  Religious 
facts  include  mysterious  meanings  which  pure  science 
misses.  Faith,  with  its  peculiar  power,  penetrates  to 
these  meanings  and  feeds  on  them.  It  does  not 
create  them ;  it  finds  them.  But  to  find  them  we 
just  need  this  faculty  of  faith  which,  working  upon 
the  facts,  does  undoubtedly  transfigure  and  disfigure 
them,  but  only  from  the  knowledge  point  of  view 
and  not  ontologically.  With  this  explanation  of 
our    position,  the  reproach   of  the    Encyclical  falls 


ii8    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

flat.  For  Modernism  admits — what  all  must  admit — 
the  progress  of  our  reflex  knowledge  of  the  super- 
natural ;  and  it  does  not  deny  that  dogma  requires 
the  rich  fecundity  of  the  initial  fact  upon  which  faith 
exercises  its  marvellous  and  inexplicable  labour  of 
vital  assimilation. 

An  eloquent  confirmation  of  this  is  supplied  by 
what  we  have  said  above  on  the  results  of  historical 
criticism  as  applied  to  Christianity. 

Dogmatic  thought  has  never  gone  beyond  its 
assigned  task  of  furnishing  merely  the  formulas 
suitable  to  shape  the  moral  attitude  of  the  faithful 
according  to  the  Gospel  type  of  religious  experience. 
The  faithful  Christian  owed  to  Christ  an  attitude  of 
obedience  and  affection  due  to  one  in  whom  dwelt 
the  fulness  of  the  divinity,  and  he  owed  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  by  whom  his  soul  was  flooded  with 
graces,  an  attitude  of  devotion  as  to  one  through 
whom,  by  an  ineffable  mystery,  the  divine  life  was 
transmitted  to  his  soul.  But  how  many  vain  essays 
before  arriving  at  a  less  inexact  representation  of 
these  mysteries — before  establishing  the  definitions 
of  Nicea!  Alexandrine  subordinationism,  Sabellian 
modalism,  which  sacrificed  the  distinction  of  persons  ; 
TertuUian's  Trinitarianism,  which  imperilled  mono- 
theism ;  Hippolytus'  theory  of  two  persons  and  a 
non-personal  gift,  the  conflict  between  Denys  of 
Rome  and  Denys  of  Alexandria — all  these  represent 


Explanation  of  the  Modernist  System  119 

so  many  attempts  made  to  arrive  at  a  Trinitarian 
formula  that  should  succeed  in  so  affecting  the 
moral  life  of  the  Christian  as  to  determine  its  true 
religious  attitute  towards  God  the  Father  and  Christ 
whom  He  has  sent,  and  the  Spirit  who  is  the  source 
of  our  supernatural  life.  ^ 


*  From  the  fact  that  Modernists  deny  that  even  our  highest  theo- 
logical conceptions  of  Christ  can  be  adequate  or  exhaustive,  the 
Encyclical  concludes  that,  '*  with  sacrilegious  audacity  they  degrade 
the  Person  of  the  Divine  Redeemer  to  the  condition  of  a  simple  and 
ordinary  man." 

This  reckless  and  utterly  false  assertion  has  been  taken  up  and 
reiterated  by  Mgr.  Moyes  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  for  December, 
1907,  in  an  article  designed  to  enlist  Protestant  sympathy  by  min- 
imising and  cloaking  the  anti-Protestant  implications  of  the  Ency- 
clical, and  by  maximising  the  critical  conclusions  of  the  most  extreme 
Modernists  and  ascribing  them  to  the  whole  class.  His  methods,  no 
less  than  his  style,  are  those  of  his  controversial  school.  He  takes 
a  premiss  from  some  Modernist ;  combines  it  with  one  of  his  own, 
which  the  said  Modernist  denies,  and  then  draws  a  conclusion  which 
he  accuses  all  Modernists  of  holding.  This  is  not  merely  accusation 
on  inference,  but  on  false  inference.  Thus  he  does  not  attempt  to 
adduce  any  passage  from  the  more  notorious  Modernists  such  as 
Abbe  Loisy,  or  M.  Le  Roy,  or  Father  Tyrrell  or  Pere  Laberthonniere, 
denying  the  divinity  of  Christ.  He  knows  very  well  that  all  these 
writers  profess,  whether  logically  or  not,  their  belief  in  the  Catholic 
faith,  though  they  cannot  possibly  hold  those  conclusions  of  scholastic 
Christology,  which  are  wrecked  for  ever  by  the  established  results  of 
New  Testament  criticism.  Of  these  results  Mgr.  Moyes  professes  to 
know  nothing.  Like  the  Encyclical  he  would  have  his  simple-minded 
readers  believe  that  Modernism  is  a  wanton  freak  of  a  priori  theolo- 
gising,  and  not  an  honest  attempt  to  reconcileCatholicism  with  whole 
masses  of  hard  indigestible  facts  for  which  his  own  scholastic  synthesis 
finds  no  room  and  no  explanation.  The  truth  is  that  for  those  who 
believe  that  certain  purely  historical  facts  and  scientific  truths  are 
miraculously  revealed,  historical  and  scientific  evidence  can  never 
yield   more  than  provisional  opinions,  mutable  at  the  command  of 


I20    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

But  all  these  doctrinal  essays  imply  a  transfigura- 
tion of  the  simple  elements  of  the  Gospel  which  is 
merely  in  the  order  of  knowledge ;  for  the  under- 
lying and  unalterable  dogmatic  realities  already 
included  from  the  first  all  those  religious  values 
which  little  by  little  have  become  apparent  through 
the  reflection  of  faith. 


authority.  They  do  not  see  that  such  scepticism  destroys  the  certi- 
tude of  the  fact  of  revelation  and  ends  in  blind  fideism.  Thus  though 
the  historical  demonstrations  of  the  limitations  of  Christ's  human 
knowledge  are  stronger  than  those  by  which  Mgr.  Moyes  would  prove 
the  fact  of  a  revelation  to  the  contrary,  the  former  leave  him  unaf- 
fected. In  the  present  instance  his  argument  seems  to  be  that  many 
Modernists  contend  that  Christ's  human  mind  was  incapable  in  the 
first  moment  of  His  conception  of  a  clear  consciousness  of  His 
hypostatic  union,  and  that  His  Messianic  self-consciousness  grew 
with  His  growth  in  wisdom  and  stature.  He  then  assumes,  what  no 
Modernist  will  admit,  that  to  deny  such  consciousness  is  to  deny  the 
divinity  of  Christ ;  and  at  once  asserts  that  all  Modernists  are  guilty 
of  this  denial.  Apparently  he  thinks  that  to  be  the  Christ  or  to  be 
the  Son  of  God  it  is  necessary  to  be  aware  of  the  fact.  One  might  ask 
him  :  is  the  newly-baptised  infant  conscious  of  the  grace  of  sonship  ; 
or  even,  is  any  man  conscious  of  his  full  relationship  to  God  in  the 
natural  or  supernatural  order?  The  excuse  for  these  inferential 
accusations  is  that  the  whole  syllogistic  rigmarole  of  scholastic 
Christology  perishes  if  one  link  in  the  chain  be  broken.  Mgr.  Moyes 
can  of  course  afford  to  be  reckless,  knowing  well  that  no  Modernist 
can  now  reply  to  his  travesties  without  incurring  excommunication, 
and  that  he  strikes  an  adversary  who  is  bound  hand  and  foot. — 
[Translator's  Note.] 


PARTICULAR  QUESTIONS 

SO  far  we  have  only  been  explaining  and  defend- 
ing our  real  positions  against  the  false  and 
biassed  accusations  of  the  Encyclical.  But  we  are 
also  there  reproached  with  certain  assertions,  stigma- 
tised as  erroneous,  which  in  reality  are  the  authentic 
teachings  of  Catholic  tradition,  and  in  whose  cause 
we  must  take  the  offensive  against  the  papal  docu- 
ment. 

SEC.    I.— THE  RELATIVE  VALUE  OF  RELIGIONS 

The  Encyclical  says :  "  Modernists  do  not  deny, 
they  even  admit,  some  openly,  others  covertly,  that 
all  religions  are  true."  Put  thus  absolutely  the 
phrase  may  sound  startling.  But  it  does  not  repre- 
sent our  view.  All  we  say  is  that  every  religion,  if 
we  consider  the  grade  of  culture  and  social  develop- 
ment reached  by  its  votaries,  evokes  a  beneficial  and 
salutary  experience.  Further  we  say  that  the  rela- 
tion between  other  religions,  past  and  present,  and 
Christianity  is  not  one  of  equality,  but  one  of  the 
less  perfect  towards  the  more  perfect.  And  in  so 
saying  we  defy  the  compilers  of  the  Encyclical  to 
prove  us  at  variance  with  the  best  testimony  of  the 

121 


122    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

Fathers  and  doctors  of  the  Church.  For  all  these 
agree  in  holding  that  the  lower  religions  retain  cer- 
tain elements  of  goodness,  inasmuch  as  each  of 
them  has  assimilated  some  fragment  of  the  primi- 
tive revelation. 

Amongst  the  earliest  Christian  apologists  S.  Jus- 
tin agreed  with  us  when,  appropriating  the  stoic 
notion  of  the  y6yog  (jnepjA-ariuo^,  he  explained  it  as 
a  reason  or  knowledge  whose  germ  was  implanted  by 
God  in  every  soul ;  or  when,  turning  to  the  pagans, 
he  said  :  "  We  declare  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Logos, 
the  Logos  whereof  the  whole  human  race  is  partaker  ; 
and  that  those  men  who  have  lived  according  to  the 
Logos  (Reason)  are  Christians,  even  though  they  be 
reckoned  among  atheists.  Such  among  the  Greeks 
were  Socrates,  Heraclitus  and  their  like ;  and  among 
the  barbarians,  Abraham,  Ananiah,  Azariah,  Misael, 
and  Elijah.  All  those  who  now  live  according  to 
the  Logos  are  Christians.  .  .  .  The  teachings 
of  Plato  do  not  contradict  those  of  Christ,  and  the 
same  is  to  be  said  of  the  stoics  and  the  poets.  Each 
has  had  a  partial  vision  of  the  divine  all-pervading 
reason.  All  the  truths  they  have  proclaimed  belong 
to  us  Christians."  *  Athenagoras  affirmed  that  all 
men  "  by  obeying  an  inspiration  that  comes  from 
God  "  agree  as  to  certain  fundamental  religious  be- 
liefs, f     Clement  of  Alexandria  gives  us  some  won- 

*Apol.V  zxAlW  SAp.-j. 


Particular  Questions  123 

derful  reflections  to  the  point :  "  Let  us  apply  the 
parable  of  the  sower  as  interpreted  for  us  by  the 
Saviour  Himself  (Matt.  xiii).  For  this  field,  which 
is  mankind,  there  is  but  one  Husbandman.  From 
the  beginning  of  the  world  this  Husbandman 
sows  the  life-giving  seed  and  waters  it  at  all  times 
with  the  rain  of  His  Word.  But  the  diverse  times 
and  places  in  which  the  Word  is  received  cause  a  di- 
versity of  results.  .  .  .  There  was  an  ancient  and 
natural  converse  between  man  and  heaven.  The 
Word  has  never  been  hidden  from  anyone.  He  is 
the  universal  light  shining  upon  all  men.  The  mani- 
festation of  the  divine  unity  and  the  divine  omnipo- 
tence is  in  all  upright  men  a  natural  thing.*  S. 
Augustine  too  afBrms  the  spontaneity  or  naturalness 
of  the  religious  sentiment  in  all  positive  forms,  and 
goes  so  far  as  to  say,  with  the  platonists,  that  our 
knowledge  of  God  is  simply  a  remembering. 
And  in  this  he  is  followed  by  S.  Anselm,  who 
teaches  that  our  spiritual  labour  of  reflection 
and  thought  aims  at  bringing  out  into  distinctive 
relief  the  divine  image  naturally  stamped  on  the 
soul. 

But  we  forbear  to  multiply  testimonies  which  for 
the  most  part  would  coincide  with  those  which  we 
have  adduced  already,  and  might  still  adduce,  in 
favour  of  the  immanence  of  religion. 

*  Strom,  i.  5,  17  ;  vi.  8,  9  :  v.  13. 


124    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

SEC.   2. — SCIENCE  AND   FAITH 

With  a  decidedly  halting  logic  the  Encyclical 
accuses  Modernism  at  once  of  separating  science 
from  faith  and  of  subjecting  faith  to  science  "  in 
three  ways :  because  every  religious  fact  falls  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  science  ;  because  the  very  idea  of 
God  is  subject  to  science ;  and  because  the  be- 
liever feels  inwardly  constrained  to  bring  Faith  and 
Science  into  accord."  And  so  the  papal  document 
applies  to  Modernists  the  words  with  which  Gregory 
IX.  rebuked  certain  doctors  of  theology  for  twisting 
''  the  heavenly  pages  of  the  Bible  into  agreement 
with  philosophical  theories."*  The  very  contra- 
dictoriness  of  the  rebuke  is  enough  to  show  its 
futility.  As  we  have  already  said,  Modernists,  in 
full  agreement  with  contemporary  psychology,  dis- 


*  This  letter  of  Gregory  IX.  is  of  1228,  and  not  of  1223,  as  the  En- 
cyclical supposes,  misled  by  Denziger's  Enchiridion^  from  which,  and 
not  from  its  original  source  and  context,  it  quotes  the  passage.  But 
this  matters  little.  Had  the  compiler  of  the  Encyclical  gone  to  the 
source  and  context  he  would  have  seen  that  the  violent  words  of 
Gregory  were  directed  against  the  scholastics  of  the  university  of 
Paris,  who,  like  their  descendants,  were  wont  to  use  Scripture  texts 
uncritically  in  support  of  their  metaphysical  placets.  Yet  it  is  these 
scholastics  and  their  uncritical  apriorist  method  whom  the  Encyclical 
Pascendi  extols  at  the  expense  of  those  who  would  now  deliver  the 
Scriptures  from  such  perverse  handling.  As  an  attempt  to  express 
Christian  experience  in  the  philosophical  language  of  that  day,  scho- 
lasticism, with  all  its  limitations,  was  the  mediaeval  Modernism,  and 
as  such  could  not  be  suppressed,  as  we  see,  not  only  from  subsequent 
history,  but  also  from  another  letter  of  Gregory  IX.  in  123 1,  which 
practically  unsays  what  he  had  said  in  1228. 


Particular  Questions  125 

tinguish  sharply  between  science  and  faith.  The 
spiritual  sources  from  which  they  proceed  seem  to 
us  quite  distinct  and  independent.  This,  for  us,  is 
a  fundamental  acquisition.  The  pretence  that  we 
subjugate  faith  to  science  is  simply  senseless.  If 
the  outward  expressions  of  individual  and  collective 
faith,  if  theological  systems  are  facts  which  as  such 
come  under  the  domain  of  science,  this  does  not  in 
any  way  mean  that  the  underlying  psychological 
movement,  called  faith,  is  tied  to  or  dependent  on 
scientific  theories.  Criticism  analyses  the  outward 
forms  and  the  public  affirmations  of  faith.  But  re- 
ligious faith  itself,  that  instinctive  need  of  every 
healthy  mind,  although  in  its  reflex  self-conscious- 
ness and  self-expression  it  may  be  affected  by  gen- 
eral culture,  springs  up  spontaneously  in  the  soul  and 
expands  itself  independently  of  all  scientific  training. 
And  so,  instead  of  taking  the  words  of  Gregory  IX. 
as  applicable  to  ourselves,  we  can  turn  them  against 
the  theologians  who  have  always  misused  Scripture 
and  travestied  its  genuine  sense  in  support  of  their 
foregone  conclusions.  Modernists,  on  the  contrary, 
instead  of  twisting  the  Bible  in  the  interests  of  a 
somewhat  disingenuous  apologetic,  make  a  sharp 
distinction  in  the  sacred  documents  between  the 
historical  foundation  and  the  expression  of  religious 
faith.  And  hence  they  examine  them  with  two  fac- 
ulties :  the  scientific  faculty,  which,  by  use  of  proper 


126    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

historical  methods,  estimates  the  value  of  the 
scriptural  sources  as  those  of  any  other  historical 
documents ;  and  the  faculty  of  faith,  or  religious 
intuition,  which  strives,  by  assimilation  and  sympa- 
thetic self-adaptation,  to  re-experience  in  itself  that 
religious  experience  of  which  the  Bible  is  the  writ- 
ten record. 

SEC.  3.— CHURCH  AND  STATE 

Finally,  the  Encyclical  reprehends  our  desire  to 
separate  Church  and  State.  Here,  again,  the  official 
Church  counts  as  a  fault  what  is  one  of  our  best  as- 
pirations— one  which  she  herself  would  v/elcome, 
were  it  not  that  her  vision  of  facts  is  clouded  by  her 
ties  and  attachments  to  the  worldly  splendour  which 
she  enjoyed  in  a  past  age  that  can  never  come  back 
again. 

We  quite  understand  those  decisive  practical  rea- 
sons that  moved  the  Church  in  the  Middle  Ages  to 
take  to  herself  a  political  power  which,  however  it 
may  at  times  have  hampered  her  spiritual  influence, 
did,  nevertheless,  further  the  development  of  mediae- 
val Europe  in  some  ways.  But  the  historical  con- 
ditions which  induced  the  Church  to  assume  a  politi- 
cal responsibility  separable  from,  if  not  quite  incom- 
patible with,  her  spiritual  power,  have  long  ceased  to 
exist.  The  modern  State  is  accepted  as  the  instru- 
ment destined  to  regulate  the  development  of  the 


Particular  Questions  127 

community  in  material  and  moral  interests,  so  far  as 
these  affect  the  public  life.  It  has  a  well-defined 
programme  and  ample  means  of  government.  Things 
being  so  the  Church  should  be  only  too  glad  to  be 
able  to  lay  down  every  sort  of  political  preoccupation, 
and  to  retire  back  into  the  sphere  of  her  spiritual 
dominion,  confining  herself  to  the  religious  guidance 
of  souls.  For  her  specific  aims  she  has  everything 
to  gain  from  this  separation  of  powers.  What  sort  of 
sympathy  is  she  likely  to  win  from  the  best  spirits 
of  the  age  by  these  wretched  remnants  of  a  power 
that  she  has  lost,  or  by  her  vain  efforts  to  re-acquire 
it?  What  sort  of  popularity  can  these  dwindHng 
and  decrepit  aristocratic  oligarchies  confer  upon  her 
which,  in  exchange  for  a  little  paltry  grandeur, 
would  tie  her  to  customs  in  open  discord  with  mod- 
ern tendencies  ?  One  thing  we  know,  and  we  say  it 
openly :  we  know  that  we  are  weary  of  seeing  the 
Church  reduced,  for  all  practical  purposes,  to  a 
bureaucracy  jealous  of  its  surviving  scraps  of  politi- 
cal power  and  hungering  to  get  back  all  it  once  had 
— to  a  group  of  idle  men  who,  having  dedicated 
themselves  to  a  priestly  and  apostolic  calling,  and 
having  afterwards  attained  the  highest  ecclesiastical 
grade,  enjoy  the  most  labulously  wealthy  benefices 
as  absentee  incumbents.  We  are  weary  of  seeing 
her  reduced  to  a  sterilised  force,  which,  notwith- 
standing an  apparent  grandeur  that  wins  the  facile 


128   The  Programme  of  Modernism 

and  unintelligent  adulation  of  the  multitude,  acts  as 
a  brake  on  social  progress ;  to  an  institution  which 
squanders  its  vital  energy  in  idly  dreaming  of  what 
it  used  to  be  in  ages  gone  by.  We  see  no  other 
effectual  way  of  ending  this  miserable  state  of  things 
than  the  entire  separation  of  the  Church  from  po- 
litical functions;  the  return  to  the  simpler  religion 
that  will  throw  open  the  doors  of  the  Church  to  the 
excluded  democracy  and  enable  her  to  pour  out 
upon  it  those  treasured  riches  of  spirituality  which 
the  Christian  tradition  has  stored  in  her  bosom. 
Away,  then,  with  all  these  empty  political  ambi- 
tions ;  away  with  all  this  plotting  to  reconstitute,  on 
different  but  equivalent  lines,  that  civil  power  which 
the  Church  exercised  in  the  Middle  Ages.  Let  the 
Church  learn  to  be  once  more  that  great  moral  force 
which  she  was  in  her  less  imposing  but  more  fruitful 
periods,  and  especially  in  her  primitive  days,  and  her 
history,  which  to-day  traces  the  course  of  a  para- 
bolic descent,  will  receive  a  new  and  vigorous  up- 
ward impulse.  The  Church  should  feel  a  sort  of 
nostalgia,  a  yearning  towards  her  own  past,  in  regard 
to  those,  as  yet  unconsciously  religious,  currents 
of  thought  and  sentiment  which  are  the  life-blood 
of  the  rising  democracy.  She  should  find  some 
way  of  mingling  with  this  world-movement  in  order 
to  ensure  its  true  success  by  means  of  the  strength  of 
her  restraints  and  the  stimulus  of  her  moral  author- 


Particular  Questions  129 

ity,  which  alone  can  bring  home  the  lessons  of  self- 
denial  and  altruism  to  the  multitudes.  She  should 
frankly  recognise  that  democracy  paves  the  way  to 
what  is  precisely  the  highest  expression  of  her 
Catholicism.  When  she  does  so,  then  democracy 
will  begin  to  yearn  after  the  Church  which  continues 
that  Gospel-message  wherein  democracy  finds  its 
own  remote  but  authentic  origin. 

SEC.  4.— RESUME. 

"  If  we  take  in  the  whole  system  [of  Modernism] 
at  one  glance  no  one  will  be  surprised  when  we  define 
it  as  the  synthesis  of  all  heresies."  So  the  Ency- 
clical gathers  up  its  charges  against  Modernism  and 
were  its  premises  only  true  its  conclusion  would  be 
fully  justified.  If  Modernism  were,  as  it  says,  satur- 
ated with  agnosticism  it  would  tear  away  the  basis 
of  Catholic  faith  and  open  the  road  to  atheism.  In 
the  foregoing  pages  we  have  tried  to  show  that  it  is 
far  otherwise.  Undoubtedly  a  crisis  has  arisen  in 
the  very  centre  of  Catholic  thought — a  crisis  that 
affects  no  one  particular  dogma,  but  extends  to  the 
whole  general  attitude  to  be  taken  as  to  the  tradi- 
tional idea  of  revelation  and  of  the  supernatural, 
and  as  to  the  whole  complexus  of  data  presented  to 
us  by  Catholicism.  One  who  sets  out  with  the  idea 
that  Christianity  and  its  scholastic  interpretation  are 
one  and  the  same  thing  may  well  see  in  Modernism, 


130    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

which  is  essentially  critical  and  anti-scholastic,  a  very 
grave  danger  to  the  integrity  of  the  Christian  tradi- 
tion. But  such  childish  fears  are  far  from  those  who 
see  that,  besides  scholasticism,  there  are  other  systems 
of  thought  into  which  the  Gospel  experiences  can  be 
translated.  History  shows  us  many  a  great  crisis 
like  the  present  which  has  arisen  in  the  Church  from 
the  need  of  adapting  faith  to  the  current  forms  of 
philosophy  and  social  organisation,  and  which  has 
issued  to  the  Church's  advantage,  enabling  her  to 
come  out  of  the  conflict  with  a  higher  consciousness 
and  expression  of  her  own  nature. 

Heresy  and  schism  have  always  been  the  results  of 
some  partial  dispute  about  a  particular  dogma  or 
placet  of  authority,  In  the  history  of  the  Church 
we  can  always  verify  the  strange  paradox  that  doc- 
trinal crises  have  ever  been  settled  more  peaceably 
in  the  measure  that  larger  and  more  universal  princi- 
ples were  affected  by  them,  and  that,  contrariwise, 
they  have  given  birth  to  more  lamentable  divisions 
in  the  measure  that  the  point  at  issue  was  of  narrower 
interest. 

Hence  we  may  rightly  augur  that  our  own  move- 
ment, being  so  wide-reaching  and  complex  in  its 
consequences,  will  triumph  without  any  violent 
cataclysm,  that  it  will  quietly  absorb  and  be  absorbed 
by  the  Church. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  AGAINST  MODERNISM 

T^HE  part  which  concerns  the  measures  to  be  taken 
A  against  Modernism  is  the  most  serious,  and,  in 
the  judgment  of  all,  the  least  commendable  part  of 
the  whole  Encyclical.  Pius  X.  ordains  that  all  the 
young  professors  suspected  of  Modernism  (and  they 
are  not  a  few)  are  to  be  driven  from  their  chairs  in 
the  seminaries ;  that  infected  books  are  to  be  con- 
demned indiscriminately,  even  though  they  may  have 
received  an  hnprimatur ;  that  a  committee  of  safe 
censors  for  the  revision  of  books  is  to  be  established 
in  every  diocese ;  that  meetings  of  modernising 
priests  or  laymen  are  to  be  forbidden ;  that  young 
ecclesiastics  who  seem  anxious  to  follow  and  study 
the  general  movement  of  contemporary  thought  are 
to  be  prevented  from  so  doing ;  that  every  diocese 
is  to  have  a  vigilance  committee  to  discover  and 
delate  Modernists ;  and  that  finally  bishops  are  to 
inform  the  Holy  See  periodically  on  the  condition 
of  their  respective  dioceses  in  regard  to  the  spread 
of  Modernist  ideas. 

However  inclined  we  may  be  to  receive  the  word 
of  the  Pope  respectfully,  we  cannot  bring  ourselves 
to  see  in  these  disciplinary  measures  that  calm  and 

131 


132    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

gentle  spirit  which  should  reign  in  the  heart  of  one 
who  speaks  in  the  name  of  Christ.  Such  measures 
represent  the  extremest  length  to  which  rigour  and 
severity  dare  go  in  this  twentieth  century,  no  longer 
tolerant  of  more  barbarous  customs.  They  even 
revive  in  some  particulars  the  excesses  of  the 
mediaeval  Inquisition — nay  more,  they  equal  the  ex- 
travagances for  which  Julian  the  apostate  has  been 
so  often  condemned  who  excluded  Christian  teachers 
from  the  schools.  What  else  can  it  be  called  but  an 
outburst  of  anger  which  orders  the  young  clerical 
Modernists,  that  is  to  say,  the  most  capable  and  in- 
dustrious, to  be  repulsed,  to  be  put  in  the  lowest 
places,  to  have  their  faculties  sterilised,  to  be  held 
up  to  the  contempt  of  their  less  capable  but  more 
servile  and  obsequious  comrades? 

Some  of  the  above  measures  not  only  display  an 
unseasonable  and  excessive  rigour,  but  also  defy 
fundamental  principles  of  canon  law.  The  commit- 
tees of  vigilance,  for  instance,  tend  to  circumscribe 
episcopal  authority  and  to  breed  resentment  and  di- 
visions in  the  ranks  of  the  clergy  by  making  every 
cleric  suspicious  of  his  fellow,  who  may  be,  for 
aught  he  knows,  a  spy,  and  by  opening  the  road  to 
all  sorts  of  mischief  and  unworthy  reprisals.  Further^ 
to  allow  works  to  be  condemned  in  one  diocese 
which  are  authorised  in  another,  besides  favouring 
the  monstrous  and  grotesque  idea  that  truth  differs 


The  Campaign  Against  Modernism  133 

for  different  dioceses,  discredits  the  authority  of  the 
revisers  and  brings  it  into  public  contempt.  The 
secrecy  to  be  observed  as  to  the  censor's  name  is  not 
only  impracticable,  but  has  the  grave  inconvenience 
of  accentuating  one  of  the  most  intolerable  abuses 
which  the  Church  has  inherited  from  the  Middle 
Ages — that  of  passing  sentence  in  intellectual  mat- 
ters without  assigning  any  reasons.  Finally,  the 
gagging  of  the  Catholic  press  can  only  result  in 
limiting  its  public  influence. 

Taken  all  together,  these  measures  not  only  bear 
scant  witness  to  the  magnanimity  of  whoever  has 
devised  them,  but  also  show  what  a  vain  terror 
Modernism  has  aroused  in  the  upper  ranks  of  the 
hierarchy.  Instead  of  letting  the  conflict  work  itself 
out  quietly,  and  the  solution  appear  in  due  course, 
the  movement  is  to  be  violently  arrested  and  dracon- 
ian  laws  are  to  be  enacted  against  us.  For  our  part, 
we  have  no  desire  that  our  opponents  should  be  for- 
bidden to  express  their  ideas,  since  we  have  too 
much  confidence  in  the  soundness  of  our  cause  to 
stand  in  fear  of  discussion.  We  cannot  but  remind 
the  Vatican  of  the  words  of  GamaHel  to  the  Pharisees 
who  were  for  imprisoning  Peter  and  his  companions: 
"  Let  these  men  go  free.  For  if  their  work  be  of 
men  it  will  come  to  naught,  but  if  it  be  of  God,  ye 
cannot  overthrow  it,  lest  haply  ye  be  found  to  fight 
against  God  "  (Acts  v.  38). 


134    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

We  ask  Pius  X.  to  repeat  this  experiment  and  to 
let  us  go  free  and  continue  our  work,  even  as  the 
Pharisees  allowed  the  Apostles  to  do.  If  our  work 
has  life  in  it,  it  will  triumph  in  spite  of  persecutions, 
though  not  to  the  credit  of  the  persecutors  ;  if  it  is 
artificial  and  sterilising  it  will  inevitably  come  to 
naught. 


CONCLUSION 

A  ND  now  let  us  conclude,  speaking,  as  all  along 
^^  we  have  spoken,  calmly  and  without  anger, 
mindful  of  the  words  "  non  in  commotione  Domi- 
nus  " — God  is  a  God  of  peace. 

A  great  spiritual  crisis,  which  did  not  begin  to-day, 
but  has  to-day  reached  its  culminating  intensity, 
troubles  all  the  religious  bodies  of  Europe — Catholi- 
cism, Lutheranism,  Anglicanism.  For  the  most 
part  it  is  due  to  the  new  orientation  of  the  public 
mind,  which  is  adverse  to  the  traditional  formulation 
of  the  religious  spirit ;  it  is  due  to  the  easily- 
popularised  results  of  science,  which  diffuse  an  in- 
stinctive distrust  of  those  metaphysical  and  historical 
titles  on  which  the  dogmatic  teaching  of  the  Churches 
rests  its  claims.  Catholicism,  by  reason  of  its  greater 
antiquity  and  of  the  more  tenaciously  guarded  ele- 
ments of  mediaevalism  within  its  system,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  by  reason  of  its  more  direct  opposition 
to  the  affirmations  of  science  and  to  the  will  of  the 
democracy,  feels  the  pain  and  distress  of  the  pro- 
found crisis  more  acutely.  But  manifestly  it  will 
not  be  able  to  eliminate  science  or  to  stifle  de- 
mocracy with  the  barren  words  of  its  condemnations 

135 


136    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

or  with  the  noisy  terrors  of  its  anathemas.  The 
movements  of  thought  in  an  age  like  ours,  where 
culture  is  so  deep-rooted  and  widespread,  is  no 
slender  rill  to  be  easily  dammed  and  arrested  in 
its  course.  It  is  an  irresistible  tide  whose  advance 
authority  should  wisely  direct  and  not  foolishly  try 
to  obstruct.  If  the  successor  of  Peter  condemns, 
with  such  unwonted  asperity,  the  science  and  the 
apologetic  of  our  times,  we  ask  ourselves  whether 
this  may  not  be  due  to  some  understandable  igno- 
rance of  the  tendencies  that  characterise  the  moral 
evolution  of  to-day,  as  well  as  to  a  radical  inability 
to  foresee  the  success  which  inevitably  must  crown 
the  progressive  efforts  of  the  modern  world.  By 
our  familiarity  with  such  numbers  and  numbers  of 
the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  we  know  very  well  how 
the  clerical  generation  of  the  immediate  past  was 
perversely  educated  in  the  most  cordial  contempt  of 
modern  culture,  and  also,  it  must  be  confessed,  in  a 
most  monstrous  esteem  of  its  own  mediaeval  theo- 
logical education.  We  have  often  reflected  on  the 
strange  spectacle  offered  by  these  out-of-date  in- 
dividuals who  live  in  contact  with  the  modern  world 
without  any  understanding  of  its  aspirations,  its 
ideals,  its  language.  But  this  section  of  the  clergy 
which  at  present  occupies  nearly  all  the  leading 
positions  of  the  hierarchy  should  not  be  a  hindrance 
to  us  who,  after  having  received  our  scholastic  edu- 


Conclusion  137 

cation,  have  set  to  work  to  master  that  language, 
to  grasp  those  ideals,  to  complete  the  reconcih'ation 
of  the  old  Catholic  tradition  with  the  new  thought 
and  the  new  social  aspirations.  Through  living,  and 
not  merely  local,  contact  with  the  world  in  which 
we  dwell  we  have  come  to  dream  of  a  great  unifica- 
tion ;  we  have  grown  to  a  conviction  that  even  the 
most  revolutionary  pronouncements  of  science  can 
in  no  wise  upset  the  affirmation  of  religious  faith, 
since  the  spiritual  processes  from  which  faith  and 
science  result  are  independent  of  one  another  and 
the  laws  of  their  development  wholly  different.  We 
are  convinced  that  the  fundamental  aspirations  of 
democracy — of  this  collective  and  altruistic  move- 
ment towards  a  fuller  realisation  of  justice  among 
men  —  contain  a  religious  element  closely  and 
strangely  akin  to  the  Messianic  hope  by  which 
Christ  bound  His  followers  in  the  bonds  of  frater- 
nity. Strong  in  this  conviction  we  had  girt  our- 
selves for  the  task  of  bringing  the  religious  experience 
of  Christianity  into  line  with  the  data  of  contempo- 
rary science  and  philosophy  and  of  emphasising  the 
religious  and  Christian  elements  that  go  to  the  con- 
stitution of  the  democratic  movement.  But  now 
ecclesiastical  authority  brusquely  arrests  our  pro- 
gress and  condemns  our  labours.  Well,  we  feel  that 
it  is  our  duty  to  offer  a  loyal  resistance,  and  at  any 
cost  to  defend  that  Catholic  tradition,  whereof  the 


138    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

Church  is  guardian,  in  a  way  which  for  the  moment 
may  merit  the  condemnation  of  authority,  but  which, 
we  are  sure,  will  in  the  end  prevail  to  the  Church's 
advantage. 

It  is  said,  or  course,  that  our  opinions  are  incom- 
patible with  Catholic  teaching,  and  that  if  accepted 
they  would  ruin  the  Church.  In  the  foregoing  pages 
we  sought  to  show  the  idleness  of  such  fears ;  we 
have  even  proved  that  the  substance  of  our  thought 
(stripped  of  those  exaggerations  and  inaccuracies 
which  only  a  controversialist's  desire  to  discredit  our 
movement  could  ascribe  to  us)  is  simply  a  return  to 
certain  half-forgotten  principles  of  which  Christian 
apologetic,  in  its  golden  age  and  prior  to  scholastic- 
ism, had  always  made  use.  But  besides  this  de- 
monstration of  the  legitimacy  of  our  religious  and 
intellectual  positions  we  can  also  adduce  an  indirect 
argument  which  we  develop  here  because  it  is  the 
most  triumphant  answer  to  those  who  say  that  our 
movement  is  hurtful  to  Catholicism  from  the  doc- 
trinal and  hierarchical  point  of  view.  It  is  this :  In 
every  crisis  which  Christianity  has  passed  through 
in  the  course  of  its  development,  and  whenever  the 
opposition  between  past  and  unyielding  forms  of 
religious  expression  and  a  new  culture  to  which  they 
are  unsuited  has  become  acute,  there  has  arisen  in 
the  Church  a  handful  of  men  animated  with  the 
design  of  reconciling  the  old  piety,  unchangeable  in 


Conclusion  139 

its  simplicity  as  a  spiritual  fact,  with  the  new  modes 
of  thought.  And  at  the  same  time  the  voice  of  the 
timorous  and  faithless  has  ever  been  raised  with 
pitiable  cowardice  to  denounce  their  courageous 
enterprise  as  heralding  disruption  and  calamity. 
The  effects  of  this  conflict  have  been  always  advan- 
tageous in  the  same  way.  The  timorous  have  exer- 
cised a  providential  restraint  on  the  hardihood  of  the 
courageous,  apt  to  run  to  excess  in  one  direction  or 
another.  But  after  this  period  of  wavering  and 
hesitation,  and  as  soon  as  the  advantages  of  the  new 
method  over  the  old  became  evident,  the  bulk  of 
the  faithful  have  sided  gladly  and  fearlessly  with 
those  who  had  formerly  been  denounced  as  revolu- 
tionaries. Examples  abound  in  Church  history. 
We  may  cite  one  or  two  of  the  more  remarkable. 

When  at  the  close  of  the  second  century  Gnos- 
ticism, with  the  refinements  of  its  theosophic  specu- 
lation, robbed  the  Church  of  some  of  her  best  and 
most  cultured  proselytes,  whose  minds  could  not 
easily  rest  in  the  rude  and  simple  piety  of  the  faith- 
ful, it  became  for  some  Christian  thinkers  a  problem 
of  life  and  death  whether  Christianity  ought  abso- 
lutely to  refuse  the  aid  of  the  classical  philosophy, 
and  so  lose  its  strongest  hold  on  the  educated  classes, 
or  ought  rather  studiously  to  seek  some  way  of  rec- 
onciling the  splendid  tradition  of  classical  philosophy 
with  the  new  spirit  of  the  Gospel.    Up  to  that  time, 


I40    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

those  who  had  sought  such  a  reconciliation  had 
ended  by  sacrificing  the  Gospel  to  philosophy  and 
so  spoiling  it  of  all  its  originality  ;  and  this  fact  had 
given  the  mass  of  the  faithful  a  profound  distrust  of 
philosophy ;  while  the  Gnostics,  who  were  respon- 
sible for  this  hasty  and  violent  synthesis,  withdrew 
altogether  from  the  official  Church. 

But  this  passive  distrust  was  no  solution  of  the 
problem  which  thrust  itself  irrepressibly  on  the 
attention  of  those  who  regarded  the  Church  as  a 
force  capable  of  development  and  diffusion,  and 
who  felt  grieved  at  the  scanty  success  of  her  propa- 
ganda in  the  centres  of  culture.  Amongst  these 
men,  Clement,  who  presided  over  the  catechetical 
school  of  Alexandria,  boldly  undertook  to  demon- 
strate not  only  the  compatibility  but  the  intimate 
correlation  and  affinity  between  pagan  philosophy 
and  Christianity.  What  happened?  His  project 
was  so  opposed  by  his  fellow-believers  that  his  great 
trilogy  which  passed  step  by  step  from  the  ethical 
preparation  for  religion  to  a  rational  demonstration 
of  the  faith,  remained  unfinished,  and  the  third  and 
most  important  part  was  replaced  by  that  some- 
what fantastic  composition,  allegorically  called 
Stromateis,  in  which  the  illustrious  Alexandrian 
tried  to  show  the  rectitude  of  his  intention  and  the 
orthodoxy  of  his  views.  This  work  is  accompanied 
with  certain  vague  remonstrances  addressed  to  his 


Conclusion  141 

"simple"  co-religionists,  who  would  discredit  his 
enterprise,  and  who  go  about  belittling  the  value 
of  philosophical  apologetic.  '' According  to  these 
men,"  he  says,  "  it  is  useless  to  write  books.  But 
if  bad  men,  whose  writings  destroy  the  souls  of 
their  readers,  write  books,  shall  he  who  makes  known 
the  truth  be  forbidden  to  do  so?  It  is  a  useful 
thing  to  beget  good  children.  But  a  man's  writings 
are  the  children  begotten  by  his  spirit."*  And  else- 
where: "There  are  some  of  us  who  reject  philoso- 
phy, and  would  have  us  contend  with  pure  and 
simple  faith.  But  that  were  to  look  for  grapes  at 
once  before  training  the  vine."f  Might  not  such 
words  be  applied  to  those  who  denounce  Modernism, 
whose  only  crime  is  that  of  trying  to  find  a  path  for 
faith  through  the  critical  and  philosophical  embar- 
rassments created  for  it  by  contemporary  thought  ? 
But  in  spite  of  momentary  opposition  Clement's 
programme  of  a  fusion  of  classical  philosophy  and 
Christian  beliefs  triumphed  in  the  end  and  became 
the  ofificial  apologetic  of  Catholicism.  The  Church 
showed  herself  to  be  a  social  organism,  gifted  with 
the  infallible  instinct  of  every  living  thing,  by  which, 
after  a  period  of  hesitation  and  experiment,  she  dis- 
covers those  solutions  which  are  essential  for  her 
existence. 

Another  most  significant  example  of  the  struggles 

*  Strom,  i.  I,  f  Strom,  i.  4. 


142    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

to  be  faced  by  all  those  who,  having  studied  the 
requirements  of  the  time,  strive  to  adapt  the  Church 
accordingly,  is  afforded  by  that  very  scholasticism 
which  to-day  is  such  an  undeniable  encumbrance  to 
the  progress  of  Catholicism,  but  which  in  its  own 
day  represented  a  vigorous  revolutionary  movement 
against  the  philosophical  tradition  of  the  Fathers, 
and  was  held  for  such  by  the  Roman  Pontiffs. 
Aristotle,  of  whose  riches  S.  Thomas  has  made  such 
spoil,  was  little  known  in  the  later  Middle  Ages.  It 
was  only  the  Arabian  philosophers  who  brought  his 
more  important  works  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
West.  The  first  mention  of  them  occurs  in  12  lo, 
and  that  in  a  provincial  synod  held  at  Paris,  when  it 
was  decreed  that  "  neither  the  works  of  Aristotle 
concerning  natural  philosophy,  nor  any  commentary 
thereon,  is  to  be  read  at  Paris,  whether  privately  or 
pubHcly."  In  1228  Gregory  IX.  approved  and  appro- 
priated this  condemnation,  and  again,  though  with 
considerable  mitigations,  in  123 1.  Once  more,  in 
1263,  Urban  IV.  renewed  the  prohibition,  doomed, 
however,  to  failure  in  face  of  the  irresistible  tendency 
of  the  time,  which  found  in  the  Aristotelian  meta- 
physics the  most  satisfactory  formulation  of  its  own 
views  of  reality,  and  which  therefore  tried  to  adopt 
it,  and  to  attune  it  to  that  Catholic  dogma  which, 
in  its  turn,  had  been  the  expression  of  Christian  piety 
arrived  at  full  self-consciousness.    The  great  artificer 


Conclusion  143 

of  this  labour  of  harmonisation  was  S.  Thomas 
Aquinas,  distrusted  at  first  by  his  colleagues  and 
superiors  on  account  of  his  Aristotelian  sympathies  ; 
authorised  later,  only  by  special  papal  permission, 
to  study  that  philosophy ;  ultimately  triumphant  in 
his  Stcmma  Theologica — that  perfect  synthesis  of 
dogma  with  Aristotelian  method  and  metaphysic. 
S.  Thomas  was  thus  the  true  Modernist  of  his  time, 
the  man  who  strove  with  marvellous  perseverance 
and  genius  to  harmonise  his  faith  with  the  thought 
of  that  day.  And  we  are  the  true  successors  of  the 
scholastics  in  all  that  was  valuable  in  their  work — 
in  their  keen  sense  of  the  adaptability  of  the 
Christian  religion  to  the  ever-changing  forms  of 
philosophy  and  general  culture. 

These  and  like  examples  are  full  of  auguries  for 
our  future.  They  bid  us  hope  that  our  work,  too, 
though  at  present  abused  and  condemned,  may  one 
day  be  justly  appreciated,  and  that  the  Church  may 
draw  from  it  those  advantages  which  we,  her  loyal 
and  disinterested  servants,  have  had  in  view.  Ideas 
move  slowly,  and  if  we  should  never  live  to  enjoy 
the  crowning  of  our  labours,  if  the  slow  process  of 
religious  revival  should  be  too  gradual  for  us  to  be 
able  to  see  the  issue,  we  shall  not  grieve  on  that 
account,  accustomed  as  we  are  to  hide  our  person- 
ality behind  that  idea  of  which  we  are  the  unworthy 
champions  ;  nor  shall  we  ever  lose  confidence.     We 


144    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

have  cast  the  seed  in  the  furrow ;  Time  will  do  the 
rest. 

Very  likely  this  unconquerable  confidence  in  the 
success  of  our  work  will  be  taken  as  a  new  proof  of 
our  pride  and  obstinacy.  Indeed,  we  have  had 
heavier  reproaches  heaped  on  us.  The  Encyclical 
goes  so  far  as  to  call  us  ''  enemies  of  the  Cross  of 
Christ,  who  labour  for  the  downfall  of  the  kingdom 
of  Jesus  Christ."  Of  all  the  phrases  of  the  papal 
document  this  is  the  one  which,  falling  from  the 
lips  of  our  father,  has  caused  us  the  most  poignant 
grief.  We  do  not  want  to  make  declarations  that 
would  redound  ever  so  remotely  to  our  own  praise. 
But  since  we  ourselves  are  not  in  cause,  nor  are  we 
seeking  our  own  honour,  but  that  of  the  truths 
which  these  pages  present  to  the  world,  and  since 
the  Gospel  has  said,  *'  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know 
them,"  we  may  not  shrink  from  the  duty  of  protest- 
ing against  the  bitter  reproof.  If  there  is  anything 
that  fires  our  life  with  an  enthusiasm,  for  which  the 
Encyclical  might  at  least  have  shown  some  respect, 
it  is  the  desire  to  spread  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  to 
secure  for  it  an  ampler,  more  living,  more  conspicu- 
ous triumph  upon  earth.  And  yet  the  Encyclical 
holds  us  up  to  the  disdain  of  the  faithful  as  blas- 
phemers of  the  Cross !  We,  on  the  contrary,  are 
conscious  of  being  the  most  ardent  champions  of  its 
universal  honour. 


Conclusion  145 

Long  and  painful  were  those  periods  of  perplexity 
through  which  we  passed  when  honest  scientific 
research  first  brought  down  about  our  ears  the  arti- 
ficial structure  of  the  scholastic  interpretation  of 
Catholicism.  Our  faith  did  not  fail  us  in  that  hour, 
but  trusting  in  the  infallible  harmony  between  the 
truth  of  faith  and  the  truth  of  reason,  and  turning 
back  to  the  pure  sources  of  Christianity,  we  at- 
tempted to  find  a  new  synthesis.  Once  in  view 
of  it,  we  tried  to  formulate  it  and  impart  it  to 
our  brethren,  to  whom  the  language  of  scholasticism 
has  become  permanently  and  incurably  incompre- 
hensible. 

We  have  gained  no  honour  from  our  apostolate,  but 
rather  persecutions  (moral  and  material),  disillusions 
and  bitter  conflicts.  But  we  have  ever  kept  before 
us  the  evangelical  precept  which  bids  us  instantly 
sacrifice  our  dearest  private  interests  for  the  kingdom 
of  God.  Our  life  has  been,  and  is  still,  spent  in  a 
weary  effort  to  bring  all  the  spiritual  energies  of 
men  to  co-operate  with  that  divine  will  which 
realises  itself  progressively  in  the  world.  And  there- 
fore we  beHeve  we  have  full  rights  of  citizenship  in 
the  Catholic  Church ;  we  believe  that  we  are  its 
most  devoted  and  loving  sons.  Do  we  not  hold 
ourselves,  and  seek  to  revive  in  others,  the  purest 
traditions  of  Christianity  ?  Christianity  has,  in  fact, 
been,  in  its  origin  and  in  its  most  flourishing  period. 


146    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

a  powerful  stimulus  and  a  profound  hope,  through 
which  souls  have  been  raised  to  a  nobler  conception 
of  life,  and  to  a  more  intense  and  disinterested 
activity  for  the  common  good.  We  would  fain  see 
it  once  more  a  force  of  progress  in  the  world.  And 
therefore  we  desire  that,  at  a  time  when  contem- 
porary civilisation,  saturated  with  the  scientific  spirit 
and  eager  with  democratic  aspirations,  is  groping 
after  a  higher  experience  of  the  Christian  religion, 
the  Cross  of  Christ  should  not  be  invoked  against 
the  spread  of  truth  and  light,  and  that  it  should  not 
be  dragged  into  bitter  political  strife  against  the 
inevitable  ascendancy  of  the  democracy — against 
the  deposition  of  the  mighty  and  the  exaltation 
of  the  lowly. 

What  appeals  to  us  and  cheers  us  on  is  the  ideal 
of  a  Church  restored  to  her  office  as  guide  of  souls 
in  their  weary  pilgrimage  to  the  distant  goal  towards 
which  they  are  spurred  by  the  Spirit  of  God — a 
spirit  of  brotherhood  and  of  peace.  All  our  efforts 
are  directed  to  inspiring  souls  with  this  renewed 
sense  of  the  imperishable  destinies  of  Catholicism 
in  the  world.  The  momentary  condemnation  of 
these  efforts  does  not  discourage  us.  Even  were 
the  official  Church,  in  its  blindness  to  the  righteous- 
ness of  our  aims,  to  repel  us  more  roughly  and 
violently  than  it  has  already  done,  we  should 
abide  untroubled  in  conscience,  remembering  those 


Conclusion  147 

illuminating  words  of    S.   Augustine,*   with  which 
we  conclude  our  defence : 

**  Divine  Providence  often  allows  even  good  men 
to  be  driven  out  of  the  Church  by  the  turbulence 
and  intrigues  of  the  carnal-minded.  And  if  they 
bear  this  insult  and  injury  patiently  for  the  peace  of 
the  Church,  and  do  not  start  some  new  schism  or 
heresy,  they  will  teach  men  with  what  affection  and 
sincerity  of  love  God  is  to  be  served.  The  fixed 
purpose  of  such  men  is  to  return  as  soon  as  ever  the 
storm  is  over  ;  or,  if  that  is  not  possible — either 
because  the  same  tempest  continues,  or  because 
their  return  would  raise  another  as  bad,  or  worse — 
they  resolve  to  work  for  the  good  of  those  very  men 
of  whose  turbulence  they  are  the  victims,  never 
forming  a  separate  congregation,  defending  unto 
death  and  aiding  by  their  testimony  that  faith  which 
they  know  to  be  preached  in  the  Catholic  Church. 
These  the   Father,  who  sees  in   secret,  crowns  in 


*  "  Saepe  etiam  sinit  divina  providentia,  per  nonnullas  nimium 
turbulentas  carnalium  hominura  seditiones,  expelli  de  congregatione 
Christiana,  etiam  bonos  viros.  Quam  contumeliam  vel  injuriam 
suam  cum  patientissime  pro  ecclesiae  pace  tulerint,  neque  ullas  novi- 
tates,  vel  schismatis  vel  haeresis,  moliti  fuerint,  docebunt  homines 
quam  vero  affectu,  et  quanta  sinceritate  charitatis  Deo  serviendum 
sit.  Talium  ergo  virorum  propositum  est,  aut  sedatis  remeare  tur- 
binibus  ;  aut  si  id  non  sinantur  (vel  eadem  tempestate  perseverante, 
vel  ne  suo  reditu  talis  aut  saevior  oriatur)  tenent  voluntatem  con- 
sulendi  etiam  eis  ipsis  quorum  motibus  perturbationibusque  ces- 
serunt,  sine  uUa  conventiculorum  segregatione  usque  ad  mortem 
defendentes  et   testimonio  juvantes   eam   fidem   quam   in   ecclesia 


148     The  Programme  of  Modernism 

secret.  It  seems  a  rare  case,  but  examples  are 
not  wanting — nay,  they  are  more  numerous  than 
commonly  supposed." 


catholica  praedicari  sciunt.  Hos  coronat  in  occulto  Pater,  in  occulto 
videns.  Rarum  hoc  videtur  genus  ;  sed  tamen  exempla  non  desunt  ; 
imo  plura  sunt  quam  credi  potest." 

S.  Augustine,  De  Vera  Religione^  c.  vi.  (Ed.  Maur,  vol.  i.  p.  751, 
col.  I  C.  D.  col.  2  A.) 


ENCYCLICAL    LETTER 

{^'Pascendi  Gregis'') 

Of  our  most  Holy  Lord,  PIUS  X.,  by  Divine  Providence 
Pope,  on  the  Doctrines  of  the  Modernists 

To  the  Patriarchs  J  Primates,  Archbishops  y  and  other 
Local  Ordinaries  in  Peace  and  Communion  with 
the  Apostolic  See. 

POPE  PIUS  X 

VENERABLE  BRETHREN,  HEALTH  AND  THE 
APOSTOLIC  BENEDICTION 

ONE  of  the  primary  obligations  assigned  by 
Christ  to  the  ofTfice  divinely  committed  to 
Us  of  feeding  the  Lord's  flock  is  that  of  guarding 
with  the  greatest  vigilance  the  deposit  of  the  faith 
delivered  to  the  saints,  rejecting  the  profane  novel- 
ties of  words  and  the  gainsaying  of  knowledge  falsely 
so  called.     There  has  never  been  a  time  when  this 

watchfulness  of  the  supreme  pastor  was  not  neces- 

149 


150    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

sary  to  the  Catholic  body ;  for,  owing  to  the  efforts 
of  the  enemy  of  the  human  race,  there  have  never 
been  lacking  "  men  speaking  perverse  things  "  (Acts 
XX.  30),  "vain  talkers  and  seducers"  (Tit.  i.  10), 
"erring  and  driving  into  error"  (2  Tim.  iii.  13).  It 
must,  however,  be  confessed  that  these  latter  days 
have  witnessed  a  notable  increase  in  the  number  of 
the  enemies  of  the  Cross  of  Christ,  who,  by  arts 
entirely  new  and  full  of  deceit,  are  striving  to  de- 
stroy the  vital  energy  of  the  Church,  and,  as  far 
as  in  them  lies,  utterly  to  subvert  the  very  Kingdom 
of  Christ.  Wherefore  We  may  no  longer  keep 
silence,  lest  We  should  seem  to  fail  in  Our  most 
sacred  duty,  and  lest  the  kindness  that,  in  the  hope 
of  wiser  counsels,  We  have  hitherto  shown  them, 
should  be  set  down  to  lack  of  diligence  in  the 
discharge  of  Our  office. 

[gravity  of  the  situation]* 

That  We  should  act  without  delay  in  this  matter 
is  made  imperative  especially  by  the  fact  that  the 
partisans  of  error  are  to  be  sought  not  only  among 
the  Church's  open  enemies  ;  but,  what  is  to  be  most 
dreaded  and  deplored,  in  her  very  bosom,  and  are 


*  These   headings  in    brackets  are  not   in  the  original,  and  are 
inserted  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 


Encyclical  Letter  151 

the  more  mischievous  the  less  they  keep  in  the  open. 
We  allude,  Venerable  Brethren,  to  many  who  belong 
to  the  Catholic  laity,  and,  what  is  much  more  sad, 
to  the  ranks  of  the  priesthood  itself,  who,  animated 
by  a  false  zeal  for  the  Church,  lacking  the  solid 
safeguards  of  philosophy  and  theology,  nay  more, 
thoroughly  imbued  with  the  poisonous  doctrines 
taught  by  the  enemies  of  the  Church,  and  lost  to  all 
sense  of  modesty,  put  themselves  forward  as  re- 
formers of  the  Church ;  and,  forming  more  boldly 
into  line  of  attack,  assail  all  that  is  most  sacred  in 
the  work  of  Christ,  not  sparing  even  the  Person 
of  the  Divine  Redeemer,  Whom,  with  sacrilegious 
audacity,  they  degrade  to  the  condition  of  a  simple 
and  ordinary  man. 

Although  they  express  their  astonishment  that 
We  should  number  them  amongst  the  enemies  of 
the  Church,  no  one  will  be  reasonably  surprised  that 
We  should  do  so,  if,  leaving  out  of  account  the  in- 
ternal disposition  of  the  soul,  of  which  God  alone  is 
the  Judge,  he  considers  their  tenets,  their  manner  of 
speech,  and  their  action.  Nor  indeed  would  he  be 
wrong  in  regarding  them  as  the  most  pernicious  of 
all  the  adversaries  of  the  Church.  For,  as  We  have 
said,  they  put  into  operation  their  designs  for  her 
undoing,  not  from  without  but  from  within.  Hence, 
the  danger  is  present  almost  in  the  very  veins  and 
heart  of  the  Church,  whose  injury  is  the  more  cer- 


152    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

tain  from  the  very  fact  that  their  knowledge  of  her 
IS  more  intimate.  Moreover,  they  lay  the  axe  not 
to  the  branches  and  shoots,  but  to  the  very  root, 
that  is,  to  the  faith  and  its  deepest  fibres.  And 
once  having  struck  at  this  root  of  immortality,  they 
proceed  to  diffuse  poison  through  the  whole  tree,  so 
that  there  is  no  part  of  Catholic  truth  which  they 
leave  untouched,  none  that  they  do  not  strive  to 
corrupt.  Further,  none  is  more  skilful,  none  more 
astute  than  they,  in  the  employment  of  a  thousand 
noxious  devices ;  for  they  play  the  double  part  of 
rationalist  and  Catholic,  and  this  so  craftily  that 
they  easily  lead  the  unwary  into  error;  and  as 
audacity  is  their  chief  characteristic,  there  is  no  con- 
clusion of  any  kind  from  which  they  shrink  or  which 
they  do  not  thrust  forward  with  pertinacity  and 
assurance.  To  this  must  be  added  the  fact,  which 
indeed  is  well  calculated  to  deceive  souls,  that  they 
lead  a  life  of  the  greatest  activity,  of  assiduous  and 
ardent  application  to  every  branch  of  learning,  and 
that  they  possess,  as  a  rule,  a  reputation  for  irre- 
proachable morality.  Finally,  there  is  the  fact  which 
is  all  but  fatal  to  the  hope  of  cure  that  their  very 
doctrines  have  given  such  a  bent  to  their  minds,  that 
they  disdain  all  authority  and  brook  no  restraint ; 
and  relying  upon  a  false  conscience,  they  attempt  to 
ascribe  to  a  love  of  truth  that  which  is  in  reality  the 
result  of  pride  and  obstinacy. 


Encyclical  Letter  153 

Once  indeed  We  had  hopes  of  recalling  them  to  a 
better  mind,  and  to  this  end  We  first  of  all  treated 
them  with  kindness  as  Our  children,  then  with 
severity  ;  and  at  last  We  have  had  recourse,  though 
with  great  reluctance,  to  public  reproof.  It  is  known 
to  you.  Venerable  Brethren,  how  unavailing  have 
been  our  efforts.  For  a  moment  they  have  bowed 
their  head,  only  to  lift  it  more  arrogantly  than  be- 
fore. If  it  were  a  matter  which  concerned  them 
alone.  We  might  perhaps  have  overlooked  it ;  but 
the  security  of  the  Catholic  name  is  at  stake. 
Wherefore  We  must  interrupt  a  silence  which  it 
would  be  criminal  to  prolong,  that  We  may  point 
out  to  the  whole  Church,  as  they  really  are,  men 
who  are  badly  disguised. 

[division  of  the  encyclical] 

It  is  one  of  the  cleverest  devices  of  the  Modernists 
(as  they  are  commonly  and  rightly  called)  to  present 
their  doctrines  without  order  and  systematic  arrange- 
ment, in  a  scattered  and  disjointed  manner,  so  as  to 
make  it  appear  as  if  their  minds  were  in  doubt  or 
hesitation,  whereas  in  reality  they  are  quite  fixed 
and  steadfast.  For  this  reason  it  will  be  of  advan- 
tage, Venerable  Brethren,  to  bring  their  teachings 
together  here  into  one  group,  and  to  point  out  their 
interconnection,  and  thus  to  pass  to  an  examina- 
tion of  the  sources  of  the  errors,  and  to  prescribe 
remedies  for  averting  the  evil  results. 


154    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

[PART  I.:  ANALYSIS  OF  MODERNIST 
TEACHING] 

To  proceed  in  an  orderly  manner  in  this  some- 
what abstruse  subject,  it  must  first  of  all  be 
noted  that  the  Modernist  sustains  and  includes 
within  himself  a  manifold  personality;  he  is  a  philo- 
sopher, a  believer,  a  theologian,  an  historian,  a 
critic,  an  apologist,  a  reformer.  These  roles  must 
be  clearly  distinguished  one  from  another  by  all 
who  would  accurately  understand  their  system  and 
thoroughly  grasp  the  principles  and  the  outcome 
of  their  doctrines. 

[AGNOSTICISM    ITS    PHILOSOPHICAL    FOUNDATION] 

We  begin,  then,  with  the  philosopher.  Modernists 
place  the  foundation  of  religious  philosophy  in  that 
doctrine  which  is  commonly  called  Agnosticism.  Ac- 
cording to  this  teaching  human  reason  is  confined 
entirely  within  the  field  of  phenoineiia,  that  is  to 
say,  to  things  that  appear,  and  in  the  manner  in 
which  they  appear:  it  has  neither  the  right  nor 
the  power  to  overstep  these  limits.  Hence  it  is 
incapable  of  lifting  itself  up  to  God,  and  of  recog- 
nising His  existence,  even  by  means  of  visible 
things.  From  this  it  is  inferred  that  God  can 
never  be  the  direct  object  of  science,  and  that, 
as  regards  history.  He  must    not  be  considered  as 


Encyclical  Letter  155 

an  historical  subject.  Given  these  premises,  every 
one  will  at  once  perceive  what  becomes  of  Natural 
Theology,  of  the  motives  of  credibility ,  of  external 
revelation.  The  Modernists  simply  sweep  them 
entirely  aside ;  they  include  them  in  Intellectualism 
which  they  denounce  as  a  system  which  is  ridiculous 
and  long  since  defunct.  Nor  does  the  fact  that 
the  Church  has  formally  condemned  these  por- 
tentous errors  exercise  the  slightest  restraint  upon 
them.  Yet  the  Vatican  Council  has  defined,  "  If 
anyone  says  that  the  one  true  God,  our  Creator 
and  Lord,  cannot  be  known  with  certainty  by  the 
natural  light  of  human  reason  by  means  of  the 
things  that  are  made,  let  him  be  anathema  ; "  * 
and  also :  "  If  anyone  says  that  it  is  not  possible 
or  not  expedient  that  man  be  taught,  through  the 
medium  of  divine  revelation,  about  God  and  the 
worship  to  be  paid  Him,  let  him  be  anathema ;"f 
and  finally,  "  If  anyone  says  that  divine  revelation 
cannot  be  made  credible  by  external  signs,  and  that 
therefore  men  should  be  drawn  to  the  faith  only 
by  their  personal  internal  experience  or  by  private 
inspiration,  let  him  be  anathema."  :j:  It  may  be 
asked,  in  what  way  do  the  Modernists  contrive  to 
make  the  transition  from  Agnosticism,  which  is  a 
state  of  pure  nescience,  to  scientific  and  historic 
Atheism,  which   is   a   doctrine   of  positive   denial; 

*  De  Revel.,  can.  i.         f  Ibid.,  can.  2.         %  ^^  Fide.,  can.  3. 


156    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

and  consequently,  by  what  legitimate  process  of 
reasoning,  they  proceed  from  the  fact  of  ignorance 
as  to  whether  God  has  in  fact  intervened  in  the 
history  of  the  human  race  or  not,  to  explain  this 
history,  leaving  God  out  altogether,  as  if  He  really 
had  not  intervened.  Let  him  answer  who  can. 
Yet  it  is  a  fixed  and  established  principle  among 
them  that  both  science  and  history  must  be  atheistic; 
and  within  their  boundaries  there  is  room  for  noth- 
ing but  phenomena;  God  and  all  that  is  divine  are 
utterly  excluded.  We  shall  soon  see  clearly  what, 
as  a  consequence  of  this  most  absurd  teaching, 
must  be  held  touching  the  most  sacred  Person  of 
Christ,  and  the  mysteries  of  His  life  and  death, 
and  of  His  Resurrection  and  Ascension  into 
Heaven. 

[VITAL  immanence] 

However,  this  Agnosticism  is  only  the  negative 
part  of  the  system  of  the  Modernists:  the  positive 
part  consists  in  what  they  call  vital  immanence. 
Thus  they  advance  from  one  to  the  other.  Religion, 
whether  natural  or  supernatural,  must,  like  every 
other  fact,  admit  of  some  explanation.  But  when 
natural  theology  has  been  destroyed,  and  the  road 
to  revelation  closed  by  the  rejection  of  the  argu- 
ments of  credibiHty,  and  all  external  revelation 
absolutely  denied,  it  is  clear  that  this  explanation 


Encyclical  Letter  157 

will  be  sought  in  vain  outside  of  man  himself.  It 
must,  therefore,  be  looked  for  in  man  ;  and  since 
religion  is  a  form  of  life,  the  explanation  must 
certainly  be  found  in  the  life  of  man.  In  this  way 
is  formulated  the  principle  of  religions  immanence. 
Moreover,  the  first  actuation,  so  to  speak,  of  every 
vital  phenomenon— and  religion,  as  noted  above, 
belongs  to  this  category —  is  due  to  a  certain  need 
or  impulsion ;  but  speaking  more  particularly  of 
life,  it  has  its  origin  in  a  movement  of  the  heart, 
which  movement  is  called  a  sense.  Therefore,  as 
God  is  the  object  of  religion,  we  must  conclude  that 
faith,  which  is  the  basis  and  foundation  of  all  relig- 
ion, must  consist  in  a  certain  interior  sense,  originat- 
ing in  a  need  of  the  divine.  This  need  of  the 
divine,  which  is  experienced  only  in  special  and 
favourable  circumstances,  cannot,  of  itself,  appertain 
to  the  domain  of  consciousness,"^  but  is  first  latent 
beneath  consciousness,  or,  to  borrow  a  term  from 
modern  philosophy,  in  the  subconsciousness^  where 
also  its  root  lies  hidden  and  undetected. 

It  may  perhaps  be  asked  how  it  is  that  this  need 
of  the  divine  which  man  experiences  within  himself 
resolves  itself  into  religion  ?  To  this  question  the 
Modernist  reply  would  be  as  follows :     Science  and 

*  [In  the  Latin  text  the  word  is  conscientia^  which  may  be  ren_ 
dered  in  English  as  "conscience"  or  "consciousness,"  and  in  the 
present  translation  it  is  so  used  as  the  context  seems  to  require. — 
Translator' s  note.'\ 


158    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

history  are  confined  within  two  boundaries,  the  one 
external,  namely,  the  visible  world,  the  other  inter- 
nal, which  is  consciousness.  When  one  or  other 
of  these  limits  has  been  reached,  there  can  be  no 
further  progress,  for  beyond  is  the  imknowable.  In 
presence  of  this  unknowable,  whether  it  is  outside 
man  and  beyond  the  visible  world  of  nature,  or  lies 
hidden  within  the  subconsciousness,  the  need  of  the 
divine  in  a  soul  which  is  prone  to  religion,  excites — 
according  to  the  principles  of  Fideisni,  without  any 
previous  advertence  of  the  mind — a  certain  special 
sense,  and  this  sense  possesses,  implied  within  itself 
both  as  its  own  object  and  as  its  intrinsic  cause,  the 
divine  reality  itself,  and  in  a  way  unites  man  with 
God.  It  is  this  sense  to  which  Modernists  give  the 
name  of  faith,  and  this  is  what  they  hold  to  be  the 
beginning  of  religion. 

But  we  have  not  yet  reached  the  end  of  their 
philosophising,  or,  to  speak  more  accurately,  of  their 
folly.  Modernists  find  in  this  sense,  not  only  faith, 
but  in  and  with  faith,  as  they  understand  it,  they  af- 
firm that  there  is  also  to  be  found  revelation.  For, 
indeed,  what  more  is  needed  to  constitute  a  revela- 
tion? Is  not  that  religious  sense  which  is  perceptible 
in  the  conscience,  revelation,  or  at  least  the  begin- 
ning of  revelation?  Nay,  is  it  not  God  Himself 
manifesting  Himself,  indistinctly,  it  is  true,  in  this 
same  religious  sense,  to  the  soul  ?    And  they  add  : 


Encyclical  Letter  159 

Since  God  is  both  the  object  and  the  cause  of  faith, 
this  revelation  is  at  the  same  time  of  God  and  from 
God,  that  is  to  say,  God  is  both  the  Revealer  and 
the  Revealed. 

From  this,  Venerable  Brethren,  springs  that  most 
absurd  tenet  of  the  Modernists,  that  every  religion, 
according  to  the  different  aspect  under  which  it  is 
viewed,  must  be  considered  as  both  natural  and 
supernatural.  It  is  thus  that  they  make  conscious- 
ness and  revelation  synonymous.  From  this  they 
derive  the  law  laid  down  as  the  universal  standard, 
according  to  which  religious  consciousness  is  to  be  put 
on  an  equal  footing  with  revelation,  and  that  to  it  all 
must  submit,  even  the  supreme  authority  of  the 
Church,  whether  in  the  capacity  of  teacher,  or  in 
that  of  legislator  in  the  province  of  sacred  liturgy  or 
discipline. 

[deformation  of  religious  history 
the  consequence  ] 

In  all  this  process,  from  which,  according  to  the 
Modernists,  faith  and  revelation  spring,  one  point  is 
to  be  particularly  noted,  for  it  is  of  capital  import- 
ance on  account  of  the  historico-critical  corollaries 
which  they  deduce  from  it.  The  Unknowable  they 
speak  of  does  not  present  itself  to  faith  as  something 
solitary  and  isolated  ;  but  on  the  contrary  in  close 
conjunction  with  some  phenomenon,  which,  though 


i6o    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

it  belongs  to  the  realms  of  science  or  history,  yet  to 
some  extent  exceeds  their  limits.  Such  a  phenome- 
non may  be  a  fact  of  nature  containing  within  itself 
something  mysterious;  or  it  may  be  a  man,  whose 
character,  actions,  and  words  cannot,  apparently,  be 
reconciled  with  the  ordinary  laws  of  history.  Then 
faith,  attracted  by  the  Unknowable  which  is  united 
with  the  phenomenon,  seizes  upon  the  whole  phe- 
nomenon, and,  as  it  were,  permeates  it  with  its  own 
life.  From  this  two  things  follow.  The  first  is  a 
sort  of  transfiguration  of  the  phenomenon  by  its  ele- 
vation above  its  own  true  conditions,  an  elevation  by 
which  it  becomes  more  adapted  to  clothe  itself  with 
the  form  of  the  divine  character  which  faith  will  be- 
stow upon  it.  The  second  consequence  is  a  certain 
disfiguration — so  it  may  be  called — of  the  same 
phenomenon,  arising  from  the  fact  that  faith  at- 
tributes to  it,  when  stripped  of  the  circumstances  of 
place  and  time,  characteristics  which  it  does  not 
really  possess;  and  this  takes  place  especially  in  the 
case  of  the  phenomena  of  the  past,  and  the  more 
fully  in  the  measure  of  their  antiquity.  From  these 
two  principles  the  Modernists  deduce  two  laws, 
which,  when  united  with  a  third  which  they  have 
already  derived  from  agnosticism,  constitute  the 
foundation  of  historic  criticism.  An  example  may 
be  sought  in  the  Person  of  Christ.  In  the  Person  of 
Christ,  they  say,  science  and  history  encounter  noth- 


Encyclical  Letter  i6i 

ing  that  is  not  human.  Therefore,  in  virtue  of  the 
first  canon  deduced  from  agnosticism,  whatever  there 
is  in  His  history  suggestive  of  the  divine,  must  be 
rejected.  Then,  according  to  the  second  canon,  the 
historical  Person  of  Christ  was  transfigured hy  faith; 
therefore  everything  that  raises  it  above  historical 
conditions  must  be  removed.  Lastly,  the  third 
canon,  which  lays  down  that  the  Person  of  Christ 
has  been  disfigured  by  faith,  requires  that  everything 
should  be  excluded,  deeds  and  words  and  all  else,  that 
is  not  in  strict  keeping  with  His  character,  condition? 
and  education,  and  with  the  place  and  time  in  which 
He  lived.  A  method  of  reasoning  which  is  passing 
strange,  but  in  it  we  have  the  Modernist  criticism. 

It  is  thus  that  the  religious  sense,  which  through 
the  agency  of  vital  immanence  emerges  from  the 
lurking-places  of  the  subconsciousness,  is  the  germ  of 
all  religion,  and  the  explanation  of  everything  that 
has  been  or  ever  will  be  in  any  religion.  This  sense, 
which  was  at  first  only  rudimentary  and  almost 
formless,  under  the  influence  of  that  mysterious  prin- 
ciple from  which  it  originated,  gradually  matured 
with  the  progress  of  human  life,  of  which,  as  has 
been  said,  it  is  a  certain  form.  This,  then,  is  the 
origin  of  all,  even  of  supernatural  religion.  For  re- 
ligions are  mere  developments  of  this  religious  sense. 
Nor  is  the  Catholic  religion  an  exception  ;  it  is  quite 
on  a  level  with  the  rest ;  for  it  was  engendered,  by 


i62    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

the  process  of  vital  immanence^  and  by  no  other  way, 
in  the  consciousness  of  Christ,  who  was  a  man  of  the 
choicest  nature,  whose  like  has  never  been,  nor  will 
be.  In  hearing  these  things  we  shudder  indeed  at 
so  great  an  audacity  of  assertion  and  so  great  a  sac- 
rilege. And  yet,  Venerable  Brethren,  these  are  not 
merely  the  foolish  babblings  of  unbelievers.  There 
are  Catholics,  yea,  and  priests  too,  who  say  these 
things  openly  ;  and  they  boast  that  they  are  going 
to  reform  the  Church  by  these  ravings !  The  ques- 
tion is  no  longer  one  of  the  old  error  which  claimed 
for  human  nature  a  sort  of  right  to  the  supernatural. 
It  has  gone  far  beyond  that,  and  has  reached  the 
point  when  it  is  affirmed  that  our  most  holy  religion, 
in  the  man  Christ  as  in  us,  emanated  from  nature 
spontaneously  and  of  itself.  Nothing  assuredly  could 
be  more  utterly  destructive  of  the  whole  supernatural 
order.  For  this  reason  the  Vatican  Council  most 
justly  decreed  :  "■  If  anyone  says  that  man  cannot 
be  raised  by  God  to  a  knowledge  and  perfection 
which  surpasses  nature,  but  that  he  can  and  should, 
by  his  own  efforts  and  by  a  constant  development, 
attain  finally  to  the  possession  of  all  truth  and  good, 
let  him  be  anathema."  * 

[THE  ORIGIN  OF  DOGMAS] 

So  far,  Venerable  Brethren,   there  has  been  no 


*  De  Revel.,  can.  3. 


Encyclical  Letter  163 

mention  of  the  intellect.  It  also,  according  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Modernists,  has  its  part  in  the  act  of 
faith.  And  it  is  of  importance  to  see  how.  In  that 
sense  of  which  We  have  frequently  spoken,  since 
sense  is  not  knowledge,  they  say  God,  indeed,  pre- 
sents Himself  to  man,  but  in  a  manner  so  confused 
and  indistinct  that  He  can  hardly  be  perceived  by 
the  believer.  It  is  therefore  necessary  that  a  certain 
light  should  be  cast  upon  this  sense  so  that  God  may 
clearly  stand  out  in  relief  and  be  set  apart  from  it. 
This  is  the  task  of  the  intellect,  whose  office  it  is  to 
reflect  and  to  analyse;  and  by  means  of  it,  man  first 
transforms  into  mental  pictures  the  vital  phenomena 
which  arise  within  him,  and  then  expresses  them  in 
words.  Hence  the  common  saying  of  Modernists: 
that  the  religious  man  must  think  his  faith.  The 
mind  then,  encountering  this  sense,  throws  itself 
upon  it,  and  works  in  it  after  the  manner  of  a  painter 
who  restores  to  greater  clearness  the  lines  of  a  picture 
that  have  been  dimmed  with  age.  The  simile  is  that 
of  one  of  the  leaders  of  Modernism.  The  operation 
of  the  mind  in  this  work  is  a  double  one :  first,  by  a 
natural  and  spontaneous  act  it  expresses  its  concept 
in  a  simple,  popular  statement ;  then,  on  reflection 
and  deeper  consideration,  or,  as  they  say,  by  elabo- 
rating its  thought,  it  expresses  the  idea  in  secondary 
propositions,  which  are  derived  from  the  first,  but 
are   more   precise   and    distinct.      These   secondary 


1 64    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

propositions,  if  they  finally  receive  the  approval  of 
the  supreme  magisterium  of  the  Church,  constitute 
dogma. 

We  have  thus  reached  one  of  the  principal  points 
in  the  Modernists'  system,  namely,  the  origin  and 
the  nature  of  dogma.  For  they  place  the  origin  of 
dogma  in  those  primitive  and  simple  formulae, 
which,  under  a  certain  aspect,  are  necessary  to  faith  ; 
for  revelation,  to  be  truly  such,  requires  the  clear 
knowledge  of  God  in  the  consciousness.  But  dogma 
itself,  they  apparently  hold,  strictly  consists  in  the 
secondary  formulae. 

To  ascertain  the  nature  of  dogma,  we  must  first 
find  the  relation  which  exists  between  the  religious 
formulas  and  the  religious  sense.  This  will  be  readily 
perceived  by  anyone  who  holds  that  these  formulas 
have  no  other  purpose  than  to  furnish  the  believer 
with  a  means  of  giving  to  himself  an  account  of  his 
faith.  These  formulas  therefore  stand  midway  be- 
tween the  beHever  and  his  faith  ;  in  their  relation  to 
the  faith  they  are  the  inadequate  expression  of  its 
object,  and  are  usually  called  symbols;  in  their 
relation  to  the  believer  they  are  mere  instruments, 

[ITS    EVOLUTION] 

Hence  it  is  quite  impossible  to  maintain  that  they 
absolutely  contain  the  truth :  for,  in  so  far  as  they 
are  symbols^  they  are  the  images  of  truth,  and  so 


Encyclical  Letter  165 

must  be  adapted  to  the  religious  sense  in  its  relation 
to  man ;  and  as  instrmneiitSy  they  are  the  vehicles  of 
truth,  and  must  therefore  in  their  turn  be  adapted 
to  man  in  his  relation  to  the  religious  sense.  But 
the  object  of  the  religious  sense,  as  something  con- 
tained in  the  absolute,  possesses  an  infinite  variety  of 
aspects,  of  which  now  one,  now  another,  may  pre- 
sent itself.  In  like  manner  he  who  believes  can 
avail  himself  of  varying  conditions.  Consequently, 
the  formulae  which  we  call  dogma  must  be  subject 
to  these  vicissitudes,  and  are,  therefore,  liable  to 
change.  Thus  the  way  is  open  to  the  intrinsic  evolu- 
tion of  dogma.  Here  we  have  an  immense  structure 
of  sophisms  which  ruin  and  wreck  all  religion. 
Dogma  is  not  only  able,  but  ought  to  evolve  and  to 
be  changed.  This  is  strongly  affirmed  by  the 
Modernists,  and  clearly  flows  from  their  principles. 
For  amongst  the  chief  points  of  their  teaching  is  the 
following,  which  they  deduce  from  the  principle  of 
vital  immanence,  namely,  that  religious  formulas,  if 
they  are  to  be  really  religious  and  not  merely  in- 
tellectual speculations,  ought  to  be  living  and  to 
live  the  life  of  the  religious  sense.  This  is  not  to  be 
understood  to  mean  that  these  formulas,  especially 
if  merely  imaginative,  were  to  be  invented  for  the 
religious  sense.  Their  origin  matters  nothing,  any 
more  than  their  number  or  quality.  What  is  neces- 
sary is  that  thtreligious sense — with  some  modification 


1 66    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

when  needful— should  vitally  assimilate  them.  In 
other  words,  it  is  necessary  that  \h.Q  primitive  formula 
be  accepted  and  sanctioned  by  the  heart ;  and  simi- 
larly the  subsequent  work  from  which  are  brought 
forth  the  secondary  formulas  must  proceed  under  the 
guidance  of  the  heart.  Hence  it  comes  that  these 
formulas,  in  order  to  be  living,  should  be,  and  should 
remain,  adapted  to  the  faith  and  to  him  who  believes. 
Wherefore,  if  for  any  reason  this  adaptation  should 
cease  to  exist,  they  lose  their  first  meaning  and  ac- 
cordingly need  to  be  changed.  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  character  and  lot  of  dogmatic  formulas  are 
so  unstable,  it  is  no  wonder  that  Modernists  should 
regard  them  so  lightly  and  in  such  open  disrespect, 
and  have  no  consideration  or  praise  for  anything  but 
the  religious  sense  and  for  the  religious  life.  In  this 
way,  with  consummate  audacity,  they  criticise  the 
Church,  as  having  strayed  from  the  true  path  by 
failing  to  distinguish  between  the  religious  and  moral 
sense  of  formulas  and  their  surface  meaning,  and 
by  clinging  vainly  and  tenaciously  to  meaningless 
formulas,  while  religion  itself  is  allowed  to  go  to 
ruin  *'  Blind  "  they  are,  and  "  leaders  of  the  blind  " 
puffed  up  with  the  proud  name  of  science,  they  have 
reached  that  pitch  of  folly  at  which  they  pervert  the 
eternal  concept  of  truth  and  the  true  meaning  of  re- 
ligion ;  in  introducing  a  new  system  in  which  "■  they 
are   seen   to   be    under   the   sway    of   a    blind    and 


Encyclical  Letter  167 

unchecked  passion  for  novelty,  thinking  not  at  all  of 
finding  some  solid  foundation  of  truth,  but  despising 
the  holy  and  apostolic  traditions,  they  embrace  other 
and  vain,  futile,  uncertain  doctrines,  unapproved  by 
the  Church,  on  which,  in  the  height  of  their  vanity, 
they  think  they  can  base  and  maintain  truth  itself."* 

[THE   MODERNIST  AS   BELIEVER:   INDIVIDUAL 
EXPERIENCE  AND   RELIGIOUS  CERTITUDE] 

Thus  far.  Venerable  Brethren,  We  have  considered 
the  Modernist  as  a  Philosopher.  Now  if  we  proceed 
to  consider  him  as  a  believer,  and  seek  to  know  how 
the  believer,  according  to  Modernism,  is  marked  off 
from  the  Philosopher,  it  must  be  observed  that, 
although  the  Philosopher  recognises  the  reality  of 
the  divine  as  the  object  of  faith,  still  this  reality  is 
not  to  be  found  by  him  but  in  the  heart  of  the 
believer,  as  an  object  of  feeling  and  affirmation,  and 
therefore  confined  within  the  sphere  of  phenomena ; 
but  the  question  as  to  whether  in  itself  it  exists 
outside  that  feeling  and  affirmation  is  one  which 
the  Philosopher  passes  over  and  neglects.  For  the 
Modernist  believer,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  an  estab- 
lished and  certain  fact  that  the  reality  of  the  divine 
does  really  exist  in  itself  and  quite  independently 
of  the  person  who  believes  in  it.  If  you  ask  on 
what  foundation  this  assertion  of  the  believer  rests, 

*  Gregory  XVI.,  Encycl,  Singulari  Nos,  7  Kal.  Jul.  1834. 


1 68    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

he  answers :  In  the  personal  experience  of  the  in- 
dividual. On  this  head  the  Modernists  differ  from 
the  Rationalists  only  to  fall  into  the  views  of  the 
Protestants  and  pseudo-Mystics.  The  following  is 
their  manner  of  stating  the  question :  In  the  re- 
ligious sense  one  must  recognise  a  kind  of  intuition 
of  the  heart  which  puts  man  in  immediate  contact 
with  the  reality  of  God,  and  infuses  such  a  persua- 
sion of  God's  existence  and  His  action  both  within 
and  without  man  as  far  to  exceed  any  scientific  con- 
viction. They  assert,  therefore,  the  existence  of  a 
real  experience,  and  one  of  a  kind  that  surpasses  all 
rational  experience.  If  this  experience  is  denied  by 
some,  like  the  Rationalists,  they  say  that  this  arises 
from  the  fact  that  such  persons  are  unwilling  to  put 
themselves  in  the  moral  state  necessary  to  produce 
it.  It  is  this  experience  which  makes  the  person  who 
acquires  it  to  be  properly  and  truly  a  believer. 

How  far  this  position  is  removed  from  that  of 
Catholic  teaching !  We  have  already  seen  how  its 
fallacies  have  been  condemned  by  the  Vatican 
Council.  Later  on,  we  shall  see  how  these  errors, 
combined  with  those  which  we  have  already  men- 
tioned, open  wide  the  way  to  Atheism.  Here  it  is 
well  to  note  at  once  that,  given  this  doctrine  of  ex- 
perience united  with  that  of  symbolism^  every  religion, 
even  that  of  paganism,  must  be  held  to  be  true. 
What  is  to  prevent  such   experiences   from  being 


Encyclical  Letter  169 

found  in  any  religion  ?  In  fact,  that  they  are  so  is 
maintained  by  not  a  few.  On  what  grounds  can 
Modernists  deny  the  truth  of  an  experience  affirmed 
by  a  follower  of  Islam  ?  Will  they  claim  a  monopoly 
of  true  experiences  for  Catholics  alone  ?  Indeed, 
Modernists  do  not  deny,  but  actually  maintain, 
some  confusedly,  others  frankly,  that  all  religions 
are  true.  That  they  cannot  feel  otherwise  is  ob- 
vious. For  on  what  ground,  according  to  their 
theories,  could  falsity  be  predicted  of  any  religion 
whatsoever  ?  Certainly  it  would  be  either  on  account 
of  the  falsity  of  the  religious  sense  or  on  account 
of  the  falsity  of  the  formula  pronounced  by  the 
mind.  Now  the  religious  sense^  although  it  may  be 
more  perfect  or  less  perfect,  is  always  one  and  the 
same;  and  the  intellectual  formula,  in  order  to  be 
true,  has  but  to  respond  to  the  religious  sense  and  to 
the  believer,  whatever  be  the  intellectual  capacity  of 
the  latter.  In  the  conflict  between  different  re- 
ligions, the  most  that  Modernists  can  maintain  is 
that  the  Catholic  has  more  truth  because  it  is  more 
vivid,  and  that  it  deserves  with  more  reason  the 
name  of  Christian  because  it  corresponds  more  fully 
with  the  origins  of  Christianity.  No  one  will  find 
it  unreasonable  that  these  consequences  flow  from 
the  premises.  But  what  is  most  amazing  is  that 
there  are  Catholics  and  priests,  who.  We  would  fain 
believe,  abhor  such  enormities,  and  yet  act  as  if  they 


170    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

fully  approved  of  them.  For  they  lavish  such  praise 
and  bestow  such  public  honour  on  the  teachers  of 
these  errors  as  to  convey  the  belief  that  their  admir- 
ation is  not  meant  merely  for  the  persons,  who  are 
perhaps  not  devoid  of  a  certain  merit,  but  rather  for 
the  sake  of  the  errors  which  these  persons  openly 
profess  and  which  they  do  all  in  their  power  to 
propagate. 

[religious  experience  and  tradition] 

There  is  yet  another  element  in  this  part  of  their 
teaching  which  is  absolutely  contrary  to  Catholic 
truth.  For  what  is  laid  down  as  to  experierice  is  also 
applied  with  destructive  effect  to  traditiofi,  which 
has  always  been  maintained  by  the  Catholic  Church. 
Tradition,  as  understood  by  the  Modernists,  is  a 
communication  with  others  of  an  original  experience, 
through  preaching  by  means  of  the  intellectual  form- 
ula. To  this  formula,  in  addition  to  its  representative 
value,  they  attribute  a  species  of  suggestive  efficacy 
which  acts  firstly  in  the  believer  by  stimulating  the 
religious  sense,  should  it  happen  to  have  grown  slug- 
gish, and  by  renewing  the  experience  once  acquired, 
and  secondly,  in  those  who  do  not  yet  believe  by 
awakening  in  them  for  the  first  time  the  religious 
sense  and  producing  the  experience.  In  this  way 
is  religious  experience  spread  abroad  among  the 
nations;    and    not    merely   among    contemporaries 


Encyclical  Letter  171 

by  preaching,  but  among  future  generations  both 
by  books  and  by  oral  transmission  from  one  to 
another.  Sometimes  this  communication  of  relig- 
ious experience  takes  root  and  thrives,  at  other 
times  it  withers  at  once  and  dies.  For  the  Modern- 
ists, to  live  is  a  proof  of  truth,  since  for  them  Hfe 
and  truth  are  one  and  the  same  thing.  Thus  we 
are  once  more  led  to  infer  that  all  existing  religions 
are  equally  true,  for  otherwise  they  would  not 
survive. 

[faith  and  science] 

We  have  proceeded  sufficiently  far,  Venerable 
Brethren,  to  have  before  us  enough,  and  more  than 
enough,  to  enable  us  to  see  what  are  the  relations 
which  Modernists  establish  between  faith  and  science 
— including,  as  they  are  wont  to  do  under  that  name, 
history.  And  in  the  first  place  it  is  to  be  held  that 
the  object-matter  of  the  one  is  quite  extraneous  to 
and  separate  from  the  object-matter  of  the  other. 
For  faith  occupies  itself  solely  with  something  which 
science  declares  to  be  for  it  luiknowable.  Hence  each 
has  a  separate  scope  assigned  to  it :  science  is  en- 
tirely concerned  with  phenomena,  into  which  faith 
does  not  at  all  enter ;  faith,  on  the  contrary, 
concerns  itself  with  the  divine,  which  is  entirely 
unknown  to  science.  Thus  it  is  contended  that 
there  can  never  be  any  dissension  between  faith  and 


172    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

science,  for  if  each  keeps  on  its  own  ground  they 
can  never  meet  and  therefore  never  can  be  in  con- 
tradiction. And  if  it  be  objected  that  in  the  visible 
world  there  are  some  things  which  appertain  to 
faith,  such  as  the  human  life  of  Christ,  the  Modern- 
ists reply  by  denying  this.  For  though  such  things 
come  within  the  category  of  phenomena,  still  in  as 
far  as  they  are  lived  by  faith  and  in  the  way  already 
described  have  been  by  faith  transfigured  and  disfig- 
ured, they  have  been  removed  from  the  world  of 
sense  and  transferred  into  material  for  the  divine. 
Hence  should  it  be  further  asked  whether  Christ 
has  wrought  real  miracles,  and  made  real  prophecies, 
whether  He  rose  truly  from  the  dead  and  ascended 
into  Heaven,  the  answer  of  agnostic  science  will  be  in 
the  negative  and  the  answer  of  faith  in  the  afifirma- 
tive — yet  there  will  not  be,  on  that  account,  any 
conflict  between  them.  For  it  will  be  denied  by 
the  philosopher  as  a  philosopher  speaking  to  philo- 
sophers and  considering  Christ  only  in  His  historical 
reality ;  and  it  will  be  afHrmed  by  the  believer  as  a 
believer  speaking  to  believers  and  considering  the 
life  of  Christ  as  lived  again  by  the  faith  and  in  the 
faith. 

[FAITH   SUBJECT   TO   SCIENCE] 

It  would  be  a  great  mistake,  nevertheless,  to  sup- 
pose that,  according  to  these  theories,  one  is  allowed 


Encyclical  Letter  173 

to  believe  that  faith  and  science  are  entirely  inde- 
pendent of  each  other.  On  the  side  of  science  that 
is  indeed  quite  true  and  correct,  but  it  is  quite 
otherwise  with  regard  to  faith,  which  is  subject  to 
science,  not  on  one  but  on  three  grounds.  For  in 
the  first  place  it  must  be  observed  that  in  every  re- 
ligious fact,  when  one  takes  away  the  divine  reality 
and  the  experience  of  it  which  the  believer  possesses, 
everything  else,  and  especially  the  religions  formulas^ 
belongs  to  the  sphere  of  phenomena  and  therefore 
falls  under  the  control  of  science.  Let  the  believer 
go  out  of  the  world  if  he  will,  but  so  long  as  he 
remains  in  it,  whether  he  like  it  or  not,  he  cannot 
escape  from  the  laws,  the  observation,  the  judgments 
of  science  and  of  history.  Further,  although  it  is 
contended  that  God  is  the  object  of  faith  alone,  the 
statement  refers  only  to  the  divine  reality,  not  to 
the  idea  of  God.  The  latter  also  is  subject  to 
science  which,  while  it  philosophises  in  what  is 
called  the  logical  order,  soars  also  to  the  absolute 
and  the  ideal.  It  is  therefore  the  right  of  philosophy 
and  of  science  to  form  its  knowledge  concerning  the 
idea  of  God,  to  direct  it  in  its  evolution  and  to  purify 
it  of  any  extraneous  elements  which  may  have 
entered  into  it.  Hence  we  have  the  Modernist 
axiom  that  the  religious  evolution  ought  to  be 
brought  into  accord  with  the  moral  and  intellectual, 
or  as  one  whom  they  regard  as  their  leader  has  ex- 


174    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

pressed  it,  ought  to  be  subject  to  it.  Finally,  man 
does  not  suffer  a  dualism  to  exist  in  himself,  and 
the  believer  therefore  feels  within  him  an  impelling 
need  so  to  harmonise  faith  with  science  that  it  may 
never  oppose  the  general  conception  which  science 
sets  forth  concerning  the  universe. 

Thus  it  is  evident  that  science  is  to  be  entirely 
independent  of  faith,  while  on  the  other  hand, 
and  notwithstanding  that  they  are  supposed  to  be 
strangers  to  each  other,  faith  is  made  subject  to 
science.  All  this,  Venerable  Brothers,  is  in  formal 
opposition  to  the  teachings  of  Our  Predecessor,  Pius 
IX.,  where  he  lays  it  down  that :  "  In  matters  of 
religion  it  is  the  duty  of  philosophy  not  to  com- 
mand but  to  serve,  not  to  prescribe  what  is  to  be 
believed,  but  to  embrace  what  is  to  be  believed  with 
reasonable  obedience,  not  to  scrutinise  the  depths  of 
the  mysteries  of  God,  but  to  venerate  them  devoutly 
and  humbly."  "^ 

The  Modernists  completely  invert  the  parts,  and 
to  them  may  be  applied  the  words  which  another  of 
Our  Predecessors,  Gregory  IX.,  addressed  to  some 
theologians  of  his  time  :  "  Some  among  you,  puffed 
up  like  bladders  with  the  spirit  of  vanity,  strive  by 
profane  novelties  to  cross  the  boundaries  fixed  by 
the  Fathers,  twisting  the  meaning  of  the  sacred  text 
...    to  the  philosophical  teaching  of  the  rational- 

*  Brief  to  the  Bishop  of  Wratislau,  June  15th,  1857, 


Encyclical  Letter  175 

ists,  not  for  the  profit  of  their  hearer  but  to  make  a 
show  of  science  .  .  .  these  men,  led  away  by 
various  and  strange  doctrines,  turn  the  head  into  the 
tail  and  force  the  queen  to  serve  the  handmaid."  * 

[the  methods  of  modernists] 

This  will  appear  more  clearly  to  anybody  who 
studies  the  conduct  of  Modernists,  which  is  in  per- 
fect harmony  with  their  teachings.  In  their  writings 
and  addresses  they  seem  not  unfrequently  to  advo- 
cate doctrines  which  are  contrary  one  to  the  other, 
so  that  one  would  be  disposed  to  regard  their 
attitude  as  double  and  doubtful.  But  this  is  done 
deliberately  and  advisedly,  and  the  reason  of  it  is  to 
be  found  in  their  opinion  as  to  the  mutual  separation 
of  science  and  faith.  Thus  in  their  books  one  finds 
some  things  which  might  well  be  approved  by  a 
Catholic,  but  on  turning  over  the  page  one  is  con- 
fronted by  other  things  which  might  well  have  been 
dictated  by  a  rationaHst.  When  they  write  history 
they  make  no  mention  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  but 
when  they  are  in  the  pulpit  they  profess  it  clearly  ; 
again,  when  they  are  dealing  with  history  they  take 
no  account  of  the  Fathers  and  the  Councils,  but 
when  they  catechise  the  people,  they  cite  them 
respectfully.  In  the  same  way  they  draw  their  dis- 
tinctions between  exegesis  which  is  theological  and 

*  Ep.  ad  Magistros  theol.     Paris,  non  Jul.  1223  [sic^. 


176    The  Programpie  of  Modernism 

pastoral  and  exegesis  which  is  scientific  and  histori- 
cal. So,  too,  when  they  treat  of  philosophy,  history, 
and  criticism,  acting  on  the  principle  that  science  in 
no  way  depends  upon  faith,  they  feel  no  especial 
horror  in  treading  in  the  footsteps  of  Luther  *  and 
are  wont  to  display  a  manifold  contempt  for  Catholic 
doctrines,  for  the  Holy  Fathers,  for  the  QEcumenical 
Councils,  for  the  Ecclesiastical  Magisterium  ;  and 
should  they  be  taken  to  task  for  this,  they  complain 
that  they  are  being  deprived  of  their  liberty.  Lastly, 
maintaining  the  theory  that  faith  must  be  subject  to 
science,  they  continuously  and  openly  rebuke  the 
Church  on  the  ground  that  she  resolutely  refuses  to 
submit  and  accommodate  her  dogmas  to  the  opinions 
of  philosophy ;  while  they,  on  their  side,  having  for 
this  purpose  blotted  out  the  old  theology,  endeavour 
to  introduce  a  new  theology  which  shall  support  the 
aberrations  of  philosophers. 

[THE    MODERNIST    AS    THEOLOGIAN:    HIS    PRINCI- 
PLES, IMMANENCE  AND    SYMBOLISM] 

At  this  point,  Venerable  Brethren,  the  way  is 
opened  for  us  to  consider  the  Modernists  in  the 
theological  arena — a  difificult  task,  yet  one  that  may 
be  disposed  of  briefly.     It  is  a  question  of  effecting 

*  Prop.  29  damn,  a  Leone  X.  Bull,  Exs^rge  Domitie  16  maii, 
1520.  Via  nobis  facta  est  enervandi  auctoritatem  Conciliorunty  et 
libere  contradicendi  eorum  gestis,  et  iudicandi  eorum  decreta,  et  con- 
fidenier  conjitendi  quidquid  verum  videiur,  sive  probatum  fuerit, 
sive  reprobatum  a  quocumque  Concilia. 


Encyclical  Letter  177 

the  conciliation  of  faith  with  science,  but  always  by- 
making  the  one  subject  to  the  other.  In  this  mat- 
ter the  Modernist  theologian  takes  exactly  the  same 
principles  which  we  have  seen  employed  by  the 
Modernist  philosopher — the  principles  of  immanence 
and  symbolism — and  applies  them  to  the  believer. 
The  process  is  an  extremely  simple  one.  The  philo- 
sopher has  declared  :  The  principle  of  faith  is  imma- 
nent ;  the  believer  has  added:  This  principle  is  God; 
and  the  theologian  draws  the  conclusion :  God  is 
immanent  in  man.  Thus  we  have  theological  imma- 
nence. So,  too,  the  philosopher  regards  it  as  certain 
that  the  representations  of  the  object  of  faith  are 
merely  symbolical ;  the  believer  has  likewise  afifirmed 
^^^\.  the  object  of  faith  is  God  in  himself ;  and  the  the- 
ologian proceeds  to  afliirm  that :  The  representations 
of  the  divine  reality  are  symbolical.  And  thus  we  have 
theological  symbolism.  These  errors  are  truly  of  the 
gravest  kind  and  the  pernicious  character  of  both 
will  be  seen  clearly  from  an  examination  of  their 
consequences.  For,  to  begin  with  symbolism,  since 
symbols  are  but  symbols  in  regard  to  their  objects 
and  only  instruments  in  regard  to  the  believer,  it  is 
necessary  first  of  all,  according  to  the  teachings  of 
the  Modernists,  that  the  believer  do  not  lay  too 
much  stress  on  the  formula,  as  formula,  but  avail 
himself  of  it  only  for  the  purpose  of  uniting  himself  to 
the  absolute  truth  which  the  formula  at  once  reveals 


178    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

and  conceals,  that  is  to  say,  endeavours  to  express 
but  without  ever  succeeding  in  doing  so.  They 
would  also  have  the  believer  make  use  of  the  formu- 
las only  in  as  far  as  they  are  helpful  to  him,  for  they 
are  given  to  be  a  help  and  not  a  hindrance  ;  with 
proper  regard,  however,  for  the  social  respect  due  to 
formulas  which  the  public  magisterium  has  deemed 
suitable  for  expressing  the  common  consciousness 
until  such  time  as  the  same  magisterium  shall  pro- 
vide otherwise.  Concerning  imma7ience  it  is  not 
easy  to  determine  what  Modernists  precisely  mean 
by  it,  for  their  own  opinions  on  the  subject  vary. 
Some  understand  it  in  the  sense  that  God  working 
in  man  is  more  intimately  present  in  him  than  man 
is  even  in  himself ;  and  this  conception,  if  properly 
understood,  is  irreproachable.  Others  hold  that  the 
divine  action  is  one  with  the  action  of  nature,  as  the 
action  of  the  first  cause  is  one  with  the  action  of  the 
secondary  cause ;  and  this  would  destroy  the  super- 
natural order.  Others,  finally,  explain  it  in  a  way 
which  savours  of  pantheism,  and  this,  in  truth,  is 
the  sense  which  best  fits  in  with  the  rest  of  their 
doctrines. 

With  this  principle  of  immanence  is  connected  an- 
other which  may  be  called  the  principle  of  divine 
permane7ice.  It  differs  from  the  first  in  much  the 
same  way  as  the  private  experience  differs  from  the 
experience   transmitted   by  tradition.     An  example 


Encyclical  Letter  179 

illustrating  what  is  meant  will  be  found  in  the 
Church  and  the  Sacraments.  The  Church  and  the 
Sacraments,  according  to  the  Modernists,  are  not  to 
be  regarded  as  having  been  instituted  by  Christ 
Himself.  This  is  barred  by  agnosticism,  which  re- 
cognises in  Christ  nothing  more  than  a  man  whose 
religious  consciousness  has  been,  like  that  of  all 
men,  formed  by  degrees  ;  it  is  also  barred  by  the 
law  of  immanence,  which  rejects  what  they  call  ex- 
ternal application  ;  it  is  further  barred  by  the  law  of 
evolution,  which  requires  for  the  development  of  the 
germs,  time  and  a  certain  series  of  circumstances ; 
it  is,  finally,  barred  by  history,  which  shows  that 
such  in  fact  has  been  the  course  of  things.  Still  it 
is  to  be  held  that  both  Church  and  Sacraments  have 
been  founded  mediately  by  Christ.  But  how?  In 
this  way:  All  Christian  consciences  were,  they 
affirm,  in  a  manner  virtually  included  in  the  con- 
science of  Christ  as  the  plant  is  included  in  the  seed. 
But  as  the  branches  live  the  life  of  the  seed,  so,  too, 
all  Christians  are  to  be  said  to  live  the  life  of  Christ. 
But  the  life  of  Christ,  according  to  faith,  is  divine, 
and  so,  too,  is  the  hfe  of  Christians.  And  if  this  life 
produced,  in  the  course  of  ages,  both  the  Church 
and  the  Sacraments,  it  is  quite  right  to  say  that 
their  origin  is  from  Christ  and  is  divine.  In  the 
same  way  they  make  out  that  the  Holy  Scriptures 
and  the  dogmas  are  divine.     And  in  this,  the  Mod- 


i8o    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

ernist  theology  may  be  said  to  reach  its  completion. 
A  slender  provision,  in  truth,  but  more  than  enough 
for  the  theologian  who  professes  that  the  con- 
clusions of  science,  whatever  they  may  be,  must 
always  be  accepted  !  No  one  will  have  any  diffi- 
culty in  making  the  application  of  these  theories  to 
the  other  points  with  which  We  propose  to  deal. 

[DOGMA  AND  THE  SACRAMENTS] 

Thus  far  We  have  touched  upon  the  origin  and 
nature  of  faith.  But  as  faith  has  many  branches, 
and  chief  among  them  the  Church,  dogma,  worship, 
devotions,  the  Books  which  we  call  *'  Sacred,"  it 
concerns  us  to  know  what  do  the  Modernists  teach 
concerning  them.  To  begin  with  dogma,  We  have 
already  indicated  its  origin  and  nature.  Dogma  is 
born  of  a  sort  of  impulse  or  necessity  by  virtue  of 
which  the  believer  elaborates  his  thought  so  as  to 
render  it  clearer  to  his  own  conscience  and  that  of 
others.  This  elaboration  consists  entirely  in  the 
process  of  investigating  and  refining  the  primitive 
mental  formula^  not  indeed  in  itself  and  according 
to  any  logical  explanation,  but  according  to  circum- 
stances, or  vitally  as  the  Modernists  somewhat  less 
intelligibly  describe  it.  Hence  it  happens  that 
around  this  primitive  formula  secondary  formulas, 
as  we  have  already  indicated,  gradually  continue  to 
be  formed,  and   these  subsequently  grouped   into 


Encyclical  Letter  i8i 

one  body,  or  one  doctrinal  construction,  and  further 
sanctioned  by  the  public  magisterium  as  responding 
to  the  common  consciousness,  are  called  dogma. 
Dogma  is  to  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the 
speculations  of  theologians  which,  although  not  alive 
with  the  life  of  dogma,  are  not  without  their  utility 
as  serving  both  to  harmonise  religion  with  science 
and  to  remove  opposition  between  them,  and  to 
illumine  and  defend  religion  from  without,  and  it 
may  be  even  to  prepare  the  matter  for  future  dogma. 
Concerning  worship  there  would  not  be  much  to  be 
said,  were  it  not  that  under  this  head  are  comprised 
the  Sacraments,  concerning  which  the  Modernist 
errors  are  of  the  most  serious  character.  For  them 
the  Sacraments  are  the  resultant  of  a  double  impulse 
or  need — for,  as  we  have  seen,  everything  in  their 
system  is  explained  by  inner  impulses  or  necessities. 
The  first  need  is  that  of  giving  some  sensible  mani- 
festation to  religion ;  the  second  is  that  of  express- 
ing it,  which  could  not  be  done  without  some 
sensible  form  and  consecrating  acts,  and  these  are 
called  Sacraments.  But  for  the  Modernists,  Sacra- 
ments are  bare  symbols  or  signs,  though  not  devoid 
of  a  certain  efficacy — an  efficacy,  they  tell  us,  like 
that  of  certain  phrases  vulgarly  described  as  having 
caught  the  popular  ear,  inasmuch  as  they  have  the 
power  of  putting  certain  leading  ideas  into  circula- 
tion, and  of  making  a  marked  impression  upon  the 


1 82    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

mind.  What  the  phrases  are  to  the  ideas,  that 
the  Sacraments  are  to  the  reHgious  sense,  that  and 
nothing  more.  The  Modernists  would  express  their 
mind  more  clearly  were  they  to  affirm  that  the 
Sacraments  are  instituted  solely  to  foster  the  faith — 
but  this  is  condemned  by  the  Council  of  Trent :  If 
anyone  say  that  these  Sacrame7its  are  instituted  solely 
to  foster  the  faith,  let  him  be  anathejna,  * 

[the  holy  scriptures] 

We  have  already  touched  upon  the  nature  and 
origin  of  the  Sacred  Books.  According  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Modernists  they  may  be  rightly  de- 
scribed as  a  summary  of  experiences,  not  indeed  of 
the  kind  that  may  now  and  again  come  to  anybody, 
but  those  extraordinary  and  striking  experiences 
which  are  the  possession  of  every  religion.  And 
this  is  precisely  what  they  teach  about  our  books  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament.  But  to  suit  their 
own  theories  they  note  with  remarkable  ingenuity 
that,  although  experience  is  something  belonging  to 
the  present,  still  it  may  draw  its  material  in  like  man- 
ner from  the  past  and  the  future,  inasmuch  as  the 
believer  by  memory  lives  \h^  past  over  again  after  the 
manner  of  the  present,  and  lives  the  future  already  by 
anticipation.  This  explains  how  it  is  that  the  histori- 
cal and  apocalyptic  books  are  included  among  the 

*  Sess.   VII.  de  Sacramentis  in  genere,  can.  5. 


Encyclical  Letter  183 

Sacred  Writings.  God  does  indeed  speak  in  these 
books  through  the  medium  of  the  believer,  but 
according  to  Modernist  theology,  only  by  immanence 
and  vital  permaitence.  We  may  ask,  what  then 
becomes  of  inspiration  ?  Inspiration,  they  reply,  is 
in  nowise  distinguished  from  that  impulse  which 
stimulates  the  believer  to  reveal  the  faith  that  is  in 
him  by  words  or  writing,  except  perhaps  by  its 
vehemence.  It  is  something  like  that  which  hap- 
pens in  poetical  inspiration,  of  which  it  has  been 
said  :  There  is  a  God  in  us,  and  when  He  stirreth  He 
sets  us  afire.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  God  is  said  to 
be  the  origin  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Sacred  Books. 
The  Modernists  moreover  afifirm  concerning  this  in- 
spiration, that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Sacred  Books 
which  is  devoid  of  it.  In  this  respect  some  might 
be  disposed  to  consider  them  as  more  orthodox  than 
certain  writers  in  recent  times  who  somewhat  restrict 
inspiration,  as,  for  instance,  in  what  has  been  put 
forward  as  so-called  tacit  citations.  But  in  all  this 
we  have  mere  verbal  conjuring.  For  if  we  take  the 
Bible,  according  to  the  standards  of  agnosticism, 
namely,  as  a  human  work,  made  by  men  for  men, 
albeit  the  theologian  is  allowed  to  proclaim  that  it 
is  divine  by  hnmayience^  what  room  is  there  left  in  it 
for  inspiration  ?  The  Modernists  assert  a  general  in- 
spiration of  the  Sacred  Books,  but  they  admit  no 
inspiration  in  the  Catholic  sense. 


1 84    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

[the  church] 

A  wider  field  for  comment  is  opened  when  we 
come  to  what  the  Modernist  school  has  imagined  to 
be  the  nature  of  the  Church.  They  begin  with  the 
supposition  that  the  Church  has  its  birth  in  a  double 
need ;  first,  the  need  of  the  individual  believer  to 
communicate  his  faith  to  others,  especially  if  he 
has  had  some  original  and  special  experience,  and 
secondly,  when  the  faith  has  become  common  to 
many,  the  need  of  the  collectivity  to  form  itself  into 
a  society  and  to  guard,  promote,  and  propagate  the 
common  good.  What,  then,  is  the  Church  ?  It  is 
the  product  of  the  collective  conscience^  that  is  to  say 
of  the  association  of  individual  consciences  which  by 
virtue  of  the  principle  of  vital  permanejice^  depend 
all  on  one  first  behever,  who  for  Catholics  is  Christ. 
Now  every  society  needs  a  directing  authority  to 
guide  its  members  towards  the  common  end,  to  foster 
prudently  the  elements  of  cohesion,  which  in  a  re- 
ligious society  are  doctrine  and  worship.  Hence  the 
triple  authority  in  the  Catholic  Church,  disciplinary^ 
dogmatic^  liturgical.  The  nature  of  this  authority  is 
to  be  gathered  from  its  origin,  and  its  rights  and 
duties  from  its  nature.  In  past  times  it  was  a  com- 
mon error  that  authority  came  to  the  Church  from 
without,  that  is  to  say,  directly  from  God  ;  and  it 
was  then  rightly  held  to  be  autocratic.      But  this 


Encyclical  Letter  185 

conception  has  now  grown  obsolete.  For  in  the 
same  way  as  the  Church  is  a  vital  emanation  of  the 
collectivity  of  consciences,  so  too  authority  emanates 
vitally  from  the  Church  itself.  Authority,  therefore, 
like  the  Church,  has  its  origin  in  the  religious  con- 
science, and,  that  being  so,  is  subject  to  it.  Should 
it  disown  this  dependence  it  becomes  a  tyranny. 
For  we  are  living  in  an  age  when  the  sense  of  liberty 
has  reached  its  highest  development.  In  the  civil 
order  the  public  conscience  has  introduced  popular 
government.  Now  there  is  in  man  only  one  con- 
science, just  as  there  is  only  one  life.  It  is  for  the 
ecclesiastical  authority,  therefore,  to  adopt  a  demo- 
cratic form,  unless  it  wishes  to  provoke  and  foment 
an  intestine  conflict  in  the  consciences  of  mankind. 
The  penalty  of  refusal  is  disaster.  For  it  is  mad- 
ness to  think  that  the  sentiment  of  liberty,  as  it  now 
obtains,  can  recede.  Were  it  forcibly  pent  up  and 
held  in  bonds,  the  more  terrible  would  be  its  out- 
burst, sweeping  away  at  once  both  Church  and 
religion.  Such  is  the  situation  in  the  minds  of  the 
Modernists,  and  their  one  great  anxiety  is,  in  con- 
sequence, to  find  a  way  of  conciliation  between  the 
authority  of  the  Church  and  the  liberty  of  the 
believers. 

[THE  RELATIONS    BETWEEN    CHURCH  AND   STATE] 
But  it  is  not  only  within  her  own  household  that 


i86    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

the  Church  must  come  to  terms.  Besides  her  re- 
lations with  those  within,  she  has  others  with  those 
who  are  outside.  The  Church  does  not  occupy  the 
world  all  by  herself ;  there  are  other  societies  in 
the  world,  with  which  she  must  necessarily  have 
dealings  and  contact.  The  rights  and  duties  of  the 
Church  towards  civil  societies  must,  therefore,  be 
determined^  and  determined,  of  course,  by  her  own 
nature,  that  to  wit,  which  the  Modernists  have 
already  described  to  us.  The  rules  to  be  applied  in 
this  matter  are  clearly  those  which  have  been  laid 
down  for  science  and  faith,  though  in  the  latter  case 
the  question  turned  upon  the  object,  while  in  the 
present  case  we  have  one  of  ends.  In  the  same  way, 
then,  as  faith  and  science  are  alien  to  each  other  by 
reason  of  the  diversity  of  their  objects.  Church  and 
State  are  strangers  by  reason  of  the  diversity  of 
their  ends,  that  of  the  Church  being  spiritual  while 
that  of  the  State  is  temporal.  Formerly  it  was  pos- 
sible to  subordinate  the  temporal  to  the  spiritual 
and  to  speak  of  some  questions  as  mixed,  conceding 
to  the  Church  the  position  of  queen  and  mistress  in 
all  such,  because  the  Church  was  then  regarded  as 
having  been  instituted  immediately  by  God  as  the 
author  of  the  supernatural  order.  But  this  doctrine  is 
to-day  repudiated  alike  by  philosophers  and  his- 
torians. The  State  must,  therefore,  be  separated 
from  the  Church,  and  the  Catholic  from  the  citizen. 


Encyclical  Letter  187 

Every  Catholic,  from  the  fact  that  he  is  also  a  citizen, 
has  the  right  and  the  duty  to  work  for  the  common 
good  in  the  way  he  thinks  best,  without  troubling 
himself  about  the  authority  of  the  Church,  without 
paying  any  heed  to  its  wishes,  its  counsels,  its  orders 
— nay,  even  in  spite  of  its  rebukes.  For  the  Church 
to  trace  out  and  prescribe  for  the  citizen  any  line  of 
action,  on  any  pretext  whatsoever,  is  to  be  guilty 
of  an  abuse  of  authority,  against  which  one  is  bound 
to  protest  with  all  one's  might.  Venerable  Brethren, 
the  principles  from  which  these  doctrines  spring  have 
been  solemnly  condemned  by  Our  predecessor,  Pius 
VI.,  in  his  Apostolic  Constitution  Auctorem  fideii^ 

[THE  MAGISTERIUM   OF  THE  CHURCH] 

But  it  is  not  enough  for  the  Modernist  school 
that  the  State  should  be  separated  from  the  Church. 
For  as  faith  is  to  be  subordinated  to  science  as  far 
as  phenomenal  elements  are  concerned,  so  too  in 
temporal  matters  the  Church  must  be  subject  to  the 
State.     This,  indeed.  Modernists  may  not  yet  say 


*  Prop.  2.  Propositio,  quae  statuit,  potestatem  a  Deo  datam 
Ecclesiae  ut  communicaretur  Pastoribus,  qui  sunt  eius  ministri  pro 
salute  animarum  ;  sic  intellecta,  ut  a  communitate  fidelium  in  Pastores 
derivetur  ecclesiastici  ministerii  ac  regiminis  potestas  :  haeretica. — 
Prop.  3.  Insuper,  quae  statuit  Romanum  Pontificem  esse  caput 
ministeriale  ;  sic  explicata  ut  Romanus  Pontifex  non  a  Christo  in 
persona  beati  Petri,  sed  ab  Ecclesia  potestatem  ministerii  accipiat, 
qua  velut  Petri  successor,  verus  Christi  vicarius  ac  totius  Ecclesiae 
caput  pollet  in  universa  Ecclesia  :  haeretica. 


i88    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

openly,  but  they  are  forced  by  the  logic  of  their 
position  to  admit  it.  For  granted  the  principle  that 
in  temporal  matters  the  State  possesses  the  sole 
power,  it  will  follow  that  when  the  believer,  not  satis- 
fied with  merely  internal  acts  of  religion,  proceeds  to 
external  acts — such  for  instance  as  the  reception  or 
administration  of  the  Sacraments  —  these  will  fall 
under  the  control  of  the  State.  What  will  then  be- 
come of  ecclesiastical  authority,  which  can  only  be 
exercised  by  external  acts  ?  Obviously  it  will  be 
completely  under  the  dominion  of  the  State.  It  is 
this  inevitable  consequence  which  urges  many  among 
liberal  Protestants  to  reject  all  external  worship  — 
nay,  all  external  religious  fellowship,  and  leads  them 
to  advocate  what  they  call  individual  religion.  If 
the  Modernists  have  not  yet  openly  proceeded  so  far, 
they  ask  the  Church  in  the  meanwhile  to  follow  of 
her  own  accord  in  the  direction  in  which  they  urge 
her  and  to  adapt  herself  to  the  forms  of  the  State. 
Such  are  their  ideas  about  disciplinary  authority. 
But  much  more  evil  and  pernicious  are  their  opinions 
on  doctrinal  and  dogmatic  authority.  The  follow- 
ing is  their  conception  of  the  magisterium  of  the 
Church:  No  religious  society,  they  say,  can  be  a 
real  unit  unless  the  religious  conscience  of  its  mem- 
bers be  one,  and  also  the  formula  which  they  adopt. 
But  this  double  unity  requires  a  kind  of  common 
mind   whose   office   is   to   find   and    determine  the 


Encyclical  Letter  189 

formula  that  corresponds  best  with  the  common 
conscience ;  and  it  must  have,  moreover,  an  au- 
thority sufficient  to  enable  it  to  impose  on  the  com- 
munity the  formula  which  has  been  decided  upon. 
From  the  combination  and,  as  it  were,  fusion  of 
these  two  elements,  the  common  mind  which  draws 
up  the  formula  and  the  authority  which  imposes  it, 
arises,  according  to  the  Modernists,  the  notion  of 
the  ecclesiastical  magisterium.  And,  as  this  magis- 
terium  springs,  in  its  last  analysis,  from  the  indi- 
vidual consciences  and  possesses  its  mandate  of 
public  utility  for  their  benefit,  it  necessarily  follows 
that  the  ecclesiastical  magisterium  must  be  depend- 
ent upon  them,  and  should  therefore  be  made  to 
bow  to  the  popular  ideals.  To  prevent  individual 
consciences  from  expressing  freely  and  openly  the 
impulses  they  feel,  to  hinder  criticism  from  urging 
forward  dogma  in  the  path  of  its  necessary  evolu- 
tion, is  not  a  legitimate  use  but  an  abuse  of  a 
power  given  for  the  public  weal.  So  too  a  due 
method  and  measure  must  be  observed  in  the  exer- 
cise of  authority.  To  condemn  and  prescribe  a  work 
without  the  knowledge  of  the  author,  without  hear- 
ing his  explanations,  without  discussion,  is  some- 
thing approaching  to  tyranny.  And  here  again  it  is 
a  question  of  finding  a  way  of  reconciling  the  full 
rights  of  authority  on  the  one  hand  and  those  of 
liberty  on  the  other.     In  the  meantime  the  proper 


igo   The  Programme  of  Modernism 

course  for  the  Catholic  will  be  to  proclaim  publicly 
his  profound  respect  for  authority,  while  never  ceas- 
ing to  follow  his  own  judgment.  Their  general 
direction  for  the  Church  is  as  follows :  That  the 
ecclesiastical  authority,  since  its  end  is  entirely 
spiritual,  should  strip  itself  of  that  external  pomp 
which  adorns  it  in  the  eyes  of  the  public.  In  this, 
they  forget  that  while  religion  is  for  the  soul,  it  is 
not  exclusively  for  the  soul,  and  that  the  honour 
paid  to  authority  is  reflected  back  on  Christ  who 
instituted  it. 

[THE  EVOLUTION  OF  DOCTRINE] 

To  conclude  this  whole  question  of  faith  and  its 
various  branches,  we  have  still  to  consider.  Vener- 
able Brethren,  what  the  Modernists  have  to  say 
about  the  development  of  the  one  and  the  other. 
First  of  all  they  lay  down  the  general  principle  that 
in  a  living  religion  everything  is  subject  to  change, 
and  must  in  fact  be  changed.  In  this  way  they 
pass  to  what  is  practically  their  principal  doctrine, 
namely,  evolution.  To  the  laws  of  evolution  every- 
thing is  subject  under  penalty  of  death — dogma. 
Church,  worship,  the  Books  we  revere  as  sacred, 
even  faith  itself.  The  enunciation  of  this  principle 
will  not  be  a  matter  of  surprise  to  anyone  who  bears 
in  mind  what  the  Modernists  have  had  to  say  about 
each  of  these  subjects.     Having  laid  down  this  law 


Encyclical  Letter  191 

of  evolution,  the  Modernists  themselves  teach  us 
how  it  operates.  And  first,  with  regard  to  faith. 
The  primitive  form  of  faith,  they  tell  us,  was  rudi- 
mentary and  common  to  all  men  alike,  for  it  had  its 
origin  in  human  nature  and  human  life.  Vital  evo- 
lution brought  with  it  progress,  not  by  the  accretion 
of  new  and  purely  adventitious  forms  from  without, 
but  by  an  increasing  perfusion  of  the  religious  sense 
into  the  conscience.  The  progress  was  of  two  kinds : 
negativey  by  the  elimination  of  all  extraneous  ele- 
ments, such,  for  example,  as  those  derived  from  the 
family  or  nationality  ;  and  positive^  by  that  intel- 
lectual and  moral  refining  of  man,  by  means  of 
which  the  idea  of  the  divine  became  fuller  and 
clearer,  while  the  religious  sense  became  more  acute. 
For  the  progress  of  faith  the  same  causes  are  to  be 
assigned  as  those  which  are  adduced  above  to  ex- 
plain its  origin.  But  to  them  must  be  added  those 
extraordinary  men  whom  we  call  prophets — of  whom 
Christ  was  the  greatest — both  because  in  their  lives 
and  their  words  there  was  something  mysterious 
which  faith  attributed  to  the  divinity,  and  because  it 
fell  to  their  lot  to  have  new  and  original  experiences 
fully  in  harmony  with  the  religious  needs  of  their 
time.  The  progress  of  dogma  is  due  chiefly  to  the 
fact  that  obstacles  to  the  faith  have  to  be  surmounted, 
enemies  have  to  be  vanquished,  and  objections  have 
to  be  refuted.     Add  to  this  a  perpetual  striving  to 


192    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

penetrate  ever  more  profoundly  into  those  things 
which  are  contained  in  the  mysteries  of  faith.  Thus, 
putting  aside  other  examples,  it  is  found  to  have 
happened  in  the  case  of  Christ :  in  Him  that  divine 
something  which  faith  recognised  in  Him  was  slowly 
and  gradually  expanded  in  such  a  way  that  He  was 
at  last  held  to  be  God.  The  chief  stimulus  of  the 
evolution  of  worship  consists  in  the  need  of  accom- 
modation to  the  manners  and  customs  of  peoples, 
as  well  as  the  need  of  availing  itself  of  the  value 
which  certain  acts  have  acquired  by  usage.  Finally, 
evolution  in  the  Church  itself  is  fed  by  the  need 
of  adapting  itself  to  historical  conditions  and  of 
harmonising  itself  with  existing  forms  of  society. 
Such  is  their  view  with  regard  to  each.  And  here, 
before  proceeding  further,  We  wish  to  draw  atten- 
tion to  this  whole  theory  of  7iecessities  or  needs^  for 
beyond  all  that  we  have  seen,  it  is,  as  it  were,  the 
base  and  foundation  of  that  famous  method  which 
they  describe  as  historical. 

Although  evolution  is  urged  on  by  needs  or  ne- 
cessities, yet,  if  controlled  by  these  alone,  it  would 
easily  overstep  the  boundaries  of  tradition,  and 
thus,  separated  from  its  primitive  vital  principle, 
would  make  for  ruin  instead  of  progress.  Hence, 
by  those  who  study  more  closely  the  ideas  of  the 
Modernists,  evolution  is  described  as  a  resultant 
from  the  conflict  of  two  forces,  one  of  them  tending 


Encyclical  Letter  193 

towards  progress,  the  other  towards  conservation. 
The  conserving  force  exists  in  the  Church  and  is 
found  in  tradition ;  tradition  is  represented  by  religi- 
ous authority,  and  this  both  by  right  and  in  fact. 
For  by  right  it  is  in  the  very  nature  of  authority  to 
protect  tradition,  and,  in  fact,  since  authority,  raised 
as  it  is  above  the  contingencies  of  life,  feels  hardly, 
or  not  at  all,  the  spurs  of  progress.  The  progressive 
force,  on  the  contrary,  which  responds  to  the  inner 
needs,  lies  in  the  individual  consciences  and  works 
in  them — especially  in  such  of  them  as  are  in  more 
close  and  intimate  contact  with  life.  Already  we 
observe.  Venerable  Brethren,  the  introduction  of 
that  most  pernicious  doctrine  which  would  make  of 
the  laity  the  factor  of  progress  in  the  Church.  Now 
it  is  by  a  species  of  covenant  and  compromise 
between  these  two  forces  of  conservatism  and  pro- 
gress, that  is  to  say  between  authority  and  individ- 
ual consciences,  that  changes  and  advances  take 
place.  The  individual  consciences,  or  some  of  them, 
act  on  the  collective  conscience,  which  brings  pres- 
sure to  bear  on  the  depositaries  of  authority  to  make 
terms  and  to  keep  to  them. 

With  all  this  in  mind,  one  understands  how  it  is 
that  the  Modernists  express  astonishment  when  they 
are  reprimanded  or  punished.  What  is  imputed 
to  them  as  a  fault  they  regard  as  a  sacred  duty. 
They  understand  the  needs   of  consciences  better 


194    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

than  anyone  else,  since  they  come  into  closer  touch 
with  them  than  does  the  ecclesiastical  authority. 
Nay,  they  embody  them,  so  to  speak,  in  themselves. 
Hence,  for  them  to  speak  and  to  write  publicly  is  a 
bounden  duty.  Let  authority  rebuke  them  if  it 
pleases — they  have  their  own  conscience  on  their 
side  and  an  intimate  experience  which  tells  them 
with  certainty  that  what  they  deserve  is  not  blame 
but  praise.  Then  they  reflect  that,  after  all,  there 
is  no  progress  without  a  battle  and  no  battle  without 
its  victims ;  and  victims  they  are  willing  to  be  like 
the  prophets  and  Christ  Himself.  They  have  no 
bitterness  in  their  hearts  against  the  authority  which 
uses  them  roughly,  for  after  all  they  readily  admit 
that  it  is  only  doing  its  duty  as  authority.  Their 
sole  grief  is  that  it  remains  deaf  to  their  warnings, 
for  in  this  way  it  impedes  the  progress  of  souls,  but 
the  hour  will  most  surely  come  when  further  delay 
will  be  impossible,  for  if  the  laws  of  evolution  may 
be  checked  for  a  while  they  cannot  be  finally  evaded. 
And  thus  they  go  their  way,  reprimands  and  con- 
demnations notwithstanding,  masking  an  incredible 
audacity  under  a  mock  semblance  of  humility. 
While  they  make  a  pretence  of  bowing  their  heads, 
their  minds  and  hands  are  more  boldly  intent  than 
ever  on  carrying  out  their  purposes.  And  this  policy 
they  follow  willingly  and  wittingly,  both  because  it 
is  part  of  their  system  that  authority  is  to  be  stimu- 


Encyclical  Letter  195 

lated  but  not  dethroned,  and  because  it  is  necessary 
for  them  to  remain  within  the  ranks  of  the  Church 
in  order  that  they  may  gradually  transform  the 
collective  conscience.  And  in  saying  this,  they  fail 
to  perceive  that  they  are  avowing  that  the  collective 
conscience  is  not  with  them,  and  that  they  have  no 
right  to  claim  to  be  its  interpreters. 

It  is  thus,  Venerable  Brethren,  that  for  the 
Modernists,  whether  as  authors  or  propagandists, 
there  is  to  be  nothing  stable,  nothing  immutable  in 
the  Church.  Nor,  indeed,  are  they  without  fore- 
runners in  their  doctrines,  for  it  was  of  these  that 
Our  Predecessor  Pius  IX.  wrote :  "  These  enemies 
of  divine  revelation  extol  human  progress  to  the 
skies,  and  with  rash  and  sacrilegious  daring  would 
have  it  introduced  into  the  Catholic  religion  as  if 
this  religion  were  not  the  work  of  God  but  of  man, 
or  some  kind  of  philosophical  discovery  susceptible 
of  perfection  by  human  efforts."  *  On  the  subject 
of  revelation  and  dogma  in  particular,  the  doctrine  of 
the  Modernists  offers  nothing  new.  We  find  it  con- 
demned in  the  Syllabus  of  Pius  IX.,  where  it  is 
enunciated  in  these  terms:  ''  Divine  revelation  is  im- 
perfect, and  therefore  subject  to  continual  and  in- 
definite progress,  corresponding  with  the  progress 
of  human  reason  ;  "  f  and  condemned  still  more 
solemnly  in  the  Vatican  Council :  "  The  doctrine  of 

*  Encycl.     Qui  pluribtis,  g  Nov.  1846.  f  Syll.  Prop.  5. 


196    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

the  faith  which  God  has  revealed  has  not  been  pro- 
posed to  human  intelligences  to  be  perfected  by 
them  as  if  it  were  a  philosophical  system,  but  as  a 
divine  deposit  entrusted  to  the  Spouse  of  Christ 
to  be  faithfully  guarded  and  infallibly  interpreted. 
Hence  also  that  sense  of  the  sacred  dogmas  is  to  be 
perpetually  retained  which  our  Holy  Mother  the 
Church  has  once  declared,  nor  is  this  sense  ever  to 
be  abandoned  on  plea  or  pretext  of  a  more  profound 
comprehension  of  the  truth."  *  Nor  is  the  develop- 
ment of  our  knowledge,  even  concerning  the  faith, 
barred  by  this  pronouncement ;  on  the  contrary,  it 
is  supported  and  maintained.  For  the  same  Council 
continues  :  '*  Let  intelligence  and  science  and  wisdom, 
therefore,  increase  and  progress  abundantly  and  vig- 
orously in  individuals  and  in  the  mass,  in  the  believer 
and  in  the  whole  Church,  throughout  the  ages  and 
the  centuries — but  only  in  its  own  kind,  that  is, 
according  to  the  same  dogma,  the  same  sense,  the 
same  acceptation."  f 

[THE   MODERNIST  AS    HISTORIAN  AND  CRITIC] 

We  have  studied  the  Modernist  as  philosopher, 
believer,  and  theologian.  It  now  remains  for  us 
to  consider  him  as  historian,  critic,  apologist,  and 
reformer. 

Some  Modernists,  devoted    to  historical  studies, 

*  Const.     Dei  Jilius,  cap.  iv.  f  Loc,  cit. 


Encyclical  Letter  197 

seem  to  be  deeply  anxious  not  to  be  taken  for 
philosophers.  About  philosophy  they  profess  to 
know  nothing  whatever,  and  in  this  they  display 
remarkable  astuteness,  for  they  are  particularly  de- 
sirous not  to  be  suspected  of  any  prepossession  in 
favour  of  philosophical  theories  which  would  lay 
them  open  to  the  charge  of  not  being,  as  they  call 
it,  objective.  And  yet  the  truth  is  that  their  history 
and  their  criticism  are  saturated  with  their  philos- 
ophy, and  that  their  historico-critical  conclusions  are 
the  natural  outcome  of  their  philosophical  principles. 
This  will  be  patent  to  anyone  who  reflects.  Their 
three  first  laws  are  contained  in  those  three  prin- 
ciples of  their  philosophy  already  dealt  with ;  the 
principle  of  agnosticism^  the  theorem  of  the  trans- 
figuration of  things  by  faith,  and  that  other  which 
may  be  called  the  principle  of  disfiguration.  Let 
us  see  what  consequences  flow  from  each  of  these. 
Agnosticism  tells  us  that  history,  like  science,  deals 
entirely  with  phenomena,  and  the  consequence  is 
that  God,  and  every  intervention  of  God  in  human 
affairs,  is  to  be  relegated  to  the  domain  of  faith  as 
belonging  to  it  alone.  Wherefore  in  things  where 
there  is  combined  a  double  element,  the  divine  and 
the  human,  as,  for  example,  in  Christ,  or  the  Church, 
or  the  Sacraments,  or  the  many  other  objects  of  the 
same  kind,  a  division  and  separation  must  be  made 
and  the  human  element  must  be  left  to  history  while 


igS    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

the  divine  will  be  assigned  to  faith.  Hence  we  have 
that  distinction,  so  current  among  the  Modernists, 
between  the  Christ  of  history  and  the  Christ  of  faith  ; 
the  Church  of  history  and  the  Church  of  faith  ;  the 
Sacraments  of  history  and  the  Sacraments  of  faith, 
and  so  in  similar  matters.  Next  we  find  that  the 
human  element  itself,  which  the  historian  has  to 
work  on,  as  it  appears  in  the  documents,  is  to  be 
considered  as  having  been  transfigured  by  faith,  that 
is  to  say,  raised  above  its  historical  conditions.  It 
becomes  necessary,  therefore,  to  eliminate  also  the 
accretions  which  faith  has  added,  to  relegate  them 
to  faith  itself  and  to  the  history  of  faith.  Thus, 
when  treating  of  Christ,  the  historian  must  set  aside 
all  that  surpasses  man  in  his  natural  condition, 
according  to  what  psychology  tells  us  of  him,  or  ac- 
cording to  what  we  gather  from  the  place  and  period 
of  his  existence.  Finally,  they  require,  by  virtue  of 
the  third  principle,  that  even  those  things  which  are 
not  outside  the  sphere  of  history,  should  pass  through 
the  sieve,  excluding  all  and  relegating  to  faith  every- 
thing which,  in  their  judgment,  is  not  in  harmony 
with  what  they  call  the  logic  of  facts  or  not  in  char- 
acter with  the  persons  of  whom  they  are  predicated. 
Thus,  they  will  not  allow  that  Christ  ever  uttered 
those  things  which  do  not  seem  to  be  within  the 
capacity  of  the  multitudes  that  listened  to  Him. 
Hence  they  delete  from  His  real  history  and  transfer 


Encyclical  Letter  199 

to  faith  all  the  allegories  found  in  His  discourses. 
We  may  peradventure  inquire  on  what  principle 
they  make  these  divisions  ?  Their  reply  is  that  they 
argue  from  the  character  of  the  man,  from  his  con- 
dition of  life,  from  his  education,  from  the  complexus 
of  the  circumstances  under  which  the  facts  took 
place,  in  short,  if  We  understand  them  aright,  on  a 
principle  which  in  the  last  analysis  is  merely  sub- 
jective. Their  method  is  to  put  themselves  into  the 
position  and  person  of  Christ,  and  then  to  attribute 
to  Him  what  they  would  have  done  under  like  cir- 
cumstances. In  this  way,  absolutely  a  priori  and 
acting  on  philosophical  principles  which  they  hold 
but  which  they  profess  to  ignore,  they  proclaim  that 
Christ,  according  to  what  they  call  His  real  history, 
was  not  God  and  never  did  anything  divine,  and  that 
as  man  He  did  and  said  only  what  they,  judging 
from  the  time  in  which  He  lived,  consider  that  He 
ought  to  have  said  or  done. 

[CRITICISM  AND  ITS   PRINCIPLES] 

As  history  takes  its  conclusions  from  philosophy, 
so  too  criticism  takes  its  conclusions  from  history. 
The  critic,  on  the  data  furnished  him  by  the  his- 
torian, makes  two  parts  of  all  his  documents.  Those 
that  remain  after  the  triple  elimination  above  de- 
scribed go  to  form  the  real  history;  the  rest  is 
attributed  to  the  history  of  the  faith  or,  as  it  is 


200    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

styled,  to  internal  history.  For  the  Modernists  dis- 
tinguish very  carefully  between  these  two  kinds  of 
history,  and  it  is  to  be  noted  that  they  oppose  the 
history  of  the  faith  to  real  history  precisely  as  real. 
Thus,  as  we  have  already  said,  we  have  a  twofold 
Christ :  a  real  Christ,  and  a  Christ,  the  one  of  faith, 
who  never  really  existed  ;  a  Christ  who  has  lived  at 
a  given  time  and  in  a  given  place,  and  a  Christ  who 
has  never  lived  outside  the  pious  meditations  of  the 
believer — the  Christ,  for  instance,  whom  we  find  in 
the  Gospel  of  S.  John,  which,  according  to  them,  is 
mere  meditation  from  beginning  to  end. 

But  the  dominion  of  philosophy  over  history  does 
not  end  here.  Given  that  division,  of  which  We 
have  spoken,  of  the  documents  into  two  parts,  the 
philosopher  steps  in  again  with  his  dogma  of  vital 
immane7ice^  and  shows  how  everything  in  the  history 
of  the  Church  is  to  be  explained  by  vital  emanation. 
And  since  the  cause  or  condition  of  every  vital 
emanation  whatsoever  is  to  be  found  in  some  need 
or  want,  it  follows  that  no  fact  can  be  regarded  as 
antecedent  to  the  need  which  produced  it — histori- 
cally the  fact  must  be  posterior  to  the  need.  What, 
then,  does  the  historian  in  view  of  this  principle  ? 
He  goes  over  his  documents  again,  whether  they  be 
contained  in  the  Sacred  Books  or  elsewhere,  draws 
up  from  them  his  list  of  the  particular  needs  of  the 
Church,  whether  relating  to  dogma,  or  liturgy,  or 


Encyclical  Letter  201 

other  matters  which  are  found  in  the  Church  thus 
related,  and  then  he  hands  his  list  over  to  the  critic. 
The  critic  takes  in  hand  the  documents  dealing  with 
the  history  of  faith  and  distributes  them,  period  by- 
period,  so  that  they  correspond  exactly  with  the  list 
of  needs,  always  guided  by  the  principle  that  the 
narration  must  follow  the  facts,  as  the  facts  follow 
the  needs.  It  may  at  times  happen  that  some  parts 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  such  as  the  Epistles,  them- 
selves constitute  the  fact  created  by  the  need.  Even 
so,  the  rule  holds  that  the  age  of  any  document  can 
only  be  determined  by  the  age  in  which  each  need 
has  manifested  itself  in  the  Church.  Further,  a  dis- 
tinction must  be  made  between  the  beginning  of  a 
fact  and  its  development,  for  what  is  born  in  one 
day  requires  time  for  growth.  Hence  the  critic 
must  once  more  go  over  his  documents,  ranged  as 
they  are  through  the  different  ages,  and  divide  them 
again  into  two  parts,  separating  those  that  regard 
the  origin  of  the  facts  from  those  that  deal  with 
their  development,  and  these  he  must  again  arrange 
according  to  their  periods. 

Then  the  philosopher  must  come  in  again  to  en- 
join upon  the  historian  the  obligation  of  following  in 
all  his  studies  the  precepts  and  laws  of  evolution. 
It  is  next  for  the  historian  to  scrutinise  his  docu- 
ments once  more,  to  examine  carefully  the  circum- 
stances and  conditions  affecting  the  Church  during 


202    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

the  different  periods,  the  conserving  force  she  has 
put  forth,  the  needs  both  internal  and  external  that 
have  stimulated  her  to  progress,  the  obstacles  she 
has  had  to  encounter,  in  a  word,  everything  that 
helps  to  determine  the  manner  in  which  the  laws  of 
evolution  have  been  fulfilled  in  her.  This  done,  he 
finishes  his  work  by  drawing  up  a  history  of  the  de- 
velopment in  its  broad  lines.  The  critic  follows 
and  fits  in  the  rest  of  the  documents.  He  sets  him- 
self to  write.  The  history  is  finished.  Now  We  ask 
here :  Who  is  the  author  of  this  history  ?  The 
historian  ?  The  critic  ?  Assuredly  neither  of  these 
but  the  philosopher.  From  beginning  to  end  every- 
thing in  it  is  a  priori^  and  an  apriorism  that  reeks  of 
heresy.  These  men  are  certainly  to  be  pitied,  of 
whom  the  Apostle  might  well  say :  TJiey  became  vain 
in  their  tJwughts  .  .  .  professing  themselves  to  be 
wise  they  became  fools  (Rom.  i,  21,  22).  At  the  same 
time,  they  excite  resentment  when  they  accuse  the 
Church  of  arranging  and  confusing  the  texts  after 
her  own  fashion,  and  for  the  needs  of  her  cause.  In 
this  they  are  accusing  the  Church  of  something  for 
which  their  own  conscience  plainly  reproaches  them. 

[HOW   THE   BIBLE  IS   DEALT  WITH] 

The  result  of  this  dismembering  of  the  records, 
and  this  partition  of  them  throughout  the  centuries, 
is  naturally  that   the   Scriptures  can  no  longer   be 


Encyclical  Letter  203 

attributed  to  the  authors  whose  names  they  bear. 
The  Modernists  have  no  hesitation  in  affirming 
generally  that  these  books,  and  especially  the  Pen- 
tateuch and  the  first  three  Gospels,  have  been  grad- 
ually formed  from  a  primitive  brief  narration,  by 
additions,  by  interpolations  of  theological  or  alle- 
gorical interpretations,  or  parts  introduced  only  for 
the  purpose  of  joining  different  passages  together. 
This  means,  to  put  it  briefly  and  clearly,  that  in  the 
Sacred  Books  we  must  admit  a  vital  evolution,  spring- 
ing from  and  corresponding  with  the  evolution  of 
faith.  The  traces  of  this  evolution,  they  tell  us,  are 
so  visible  in  the  books  that  one  might  almost  write 
a  history  of  it.  Indeed,  this  history  they  actually 
do  write,  and  with  such  an  easy  assurance  that  one 
might  believe  them  to  have  seen  with  their  own  eyes 
the  writers  at  work  through  the  ages  amplifying  the 
Sacred  Books.  To  aid  them  in  this  they  call  to 
their  assistance  that  branch  of  criticism  which  they 
call  textual,  and  labour  to  show  that  such  a  fact  or 
such  a  phase  is  not  in  its  right  place,  adducing  other 
arguments  of  the  same  kind.  They  seem,  in  fact,  to 
have  constructed  for  themselves  certain  types  of 
narration  and  discourses,  upon  which  they  base  their 
assured  verdict  as  to  whether  a  thing  is  or  is  not  out 
of  place.  Let  him  who  can  judge  how  far  they  are 
qualified  in  this  way  to  make  such  distinctions.  To 
hear  them  descant  of  their  works  on  the  Sacred  Books, 


204    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

in  which  they  have  been  able  to  discover  so  much 
that  is  defective,  one  would  imagine  that  before  them 
nobody  ever  even  turned  over  the  pages  of  Scripture. 
The  truth  is  that  a  whole  multitude  of  Doctors,  far 
superior  to  them  in  genius,  in  erudition,  in  sanctity, 
have  sifted  the  Sacred  Books  in  every  way,  and  so 
far  from  finding  in  them  anything  blameworthy  have 
thanked  God  more  and  more  heartily  the  more 
deeply  they  have  gone  into  them,  for  His  divine 
bounty  in  having  vouchsafed  to  speak  thus  to  men. 
Unfortunately,  these  great  Doctors  did  not  enjoy 
the  same  aids  to  study  that  are  possessed  by  the 
Modernists  for  they  did  not  have  for  their  rule  and 
guide  a  philosophy  borrowed  from  the  negation  of 
God,  and  a  criterion  which  consists  of  themselves. 

We  believe,  then,  that  We  have  set  forth  with 
sufilicient  clearness  the  historical  method  of  the 
Modernists.  The  philosopher  leads  the  way,  the  his- 
torian follows,  and  then  in  due  order  come  the 
internal  and  textual  critics.  And  since  it  is  char- 
acteristic of  the  primary  cause  to  communicate  its 
virtue  to  causes  which  are  secondary,  it  is  quite 
clear  that  the  criticism  with  which  we  are  concerned 
is  not  any  kind  of  criticism,  but  that  which  is  rightly 
called  agnostic,  iinmanentist ,  and  evolutionist  criticism. 
Hence  anyone  who  adopts  it  and  employs  it,  makes 
profession  thereby  of  the  errors  contained  in  it,  and 
places  himself   in    opposition  to  Catholic  teaching. 


Encyclical  Letter  205 

This  being  so,  it  is  much  a  matter  for  surprise  that 
it  should  have  found  acceptance  to  such  an  extent 
amongst  certain  Catholics.  Two  causes  may  be 
assigned  for  this :  first,  the  close  alliance  which  the 
historians  and  critics  of  this  school  have  formed 
among  themselves  independent  of  all  differences  of 
nationality  or  religion ;  second,  their  boundless 
effrontery  by  which,  if  one  then  makes  any  utter- 
ance, the  others  applaud  him  in  chorus,  proclaiming 
that  science  has  made  another  step  forward,  while 
if  an  outsider  should  desire  to  inspect  the  new 
discovery  for  himself,  they  form  a  coalition  against 
him.  He  who  denies  it  is  decried  as  one  who  is 
ignorant,  while  he  who  embraces  and  defends  it  has 
all  their  praise.  In  this  way  they  entrap  not  a  few, 
who,  did  they  but  realise  what  they  are  doing, 
would  shrink  back  with  horror.  The  domineering 
overbearance  of  those  who  teach  the  errors,  and  the 
thoughtless  compliance  of  the  more  shallow  minds 
who  assent  to  them,  create  a  corrupted  atmosphere 
which  penetrates  everywhere,  and  carries  infection 
with  it.     But  let  Us  pass  to  the  apologist. 

[THE   MODERNIST  AS   APOLOGIST] 

The  Modernist  apologist  depends  in  two  ways  on 
the  philosopher.  First,  indirectly,  inasmuch  as  his 
subject-matter  is  history — history  dictated,  as  we 
have  seen,  by  the  philosopher ;   and,  secondly,  di- 


2o6    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

rectly,  inasmuch  as  he  takes  both  his  doctrines  and 
his  conclusions  from  the  philosopher.  Hence  that 
common  axiom  of  the  Modernist  school  that  in  the 
new  apologetics  controversies  in  religion  must  be 
determined  by  psychological  and  historical  research. 
The  Modernist  apologists,  then,  enter  the  arena,  pro- 
claiming to  the  rationalists  that,  though  they  are 
defending  religion,  they  have  no  intention  of  em- 
ploying the  data  of  the  Sacred  Books  or  the  histories 
in  current  use  in  the  Church,  and  written  upon  the 
old  lines,  but  real  history  composed  on  modern  prin- 
ciples and  according  to  the  modern  method.  In  all 
this  they  assert  that  they  are  not  using  an  argu- 
mentum  ad  Jiominem,  because  they  are  really  of  the 
opinion  that  the  truth  is  to  be  found  only  in  this 
kind  of  history.  They  feel  that  it  is  not  necessary 
for  them  to  make  profession  of  their  own  sincerity 
in  their  writings.  They  are  already  known  to  and 
praised  by  the  rationalist  as  fighting  under  the 
same  banner,  and  they  not  only  plume  themselves 
on  these  encomiums,  which  would  only  provoke  dis- 
gust in  a  real  Catholic,  but  use  them  as  a  counter 
compensation  to  the  reprimands  of  the  Church. 

Let  us  see  how  the  Modernist  conducts  his  apolo- 
getics.  The  aim  he  sets  before  himself  is  to  make 
one  who  is  still  without  faith  attain  that  experience 
of  the  Catholic  religion  which,  according  to  the 
system,  is  the  sole  basis  of  faith.     There  are  two 


Encyclical  Letter  207 

ways  open  to  him,  the  objective  and  the  subjective. 
The  first  of  them  starts  from  agnosticism.  It  tends 
to  show  that  religion,  and  especially  the  Catholic 
religion  is  endowed  with  such  vitality  as  to  compel 
every  psychologist  and  historian  of  good  faith  to 
recognise  that  its  history  hides  some  element  of  the 
unknown.  To  this  end  it  is  necessary  to  prove  that 
the  Catholic  religion,  as  it  exists  to-day,  is  that  which 
was  founded  by  Jesus  Christ ;  that  is  to  say,  that  it 
is  nothing  else  than  the  progressive  development  of 
the  germ  which  He  brought  into  the  world.  Hence 
it  is  imperative  first  of  all  to  establish  what  this  germ 
was,  and  this  the  Modernist  claims  to  be  able  to  do 
by  the  following  formula :  Christ  announced  the 
coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  was  to  be 
realised  within  a  brief  lapse  of  time  and  of  which  He 
was  to  become  the  Messiah,  the  divinely-given 
founder  and  ruler.  Then  it  must  be  shown  how 
this  germ,  always  immanent  and  permanent  in  the 
Catholic  religion,  has  gone  on  slowly  developing  in 
the  course  of  history,  adapting  itself  successively  to 
the  different  circumstances  through  which  it  has 
passed,  borrowing  from  them  by  vital  assimilation 
all  the  doctrinal,  cultual,  ecclesiastical  forms  that 
served  its  purpose ;  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
surmounted  all  obstacles,  vanquished  all  enemies, 
and  survived  all  assaults  and  all  combats.  Anyone 
who  well  and  duly  considers  this  mass  of  obstacles, 


2o8    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

adversaries,  attacks,  combats,  and  the  vitality  and 
fecundity  which  the  Church  has  shown  throughout 
them  all,  must  admit  that  if  the  laws  of  evolution 
are  visible  in  her  life  they  fail  to  explain  the  whole  of 
her  history  —  the  unknown  rises  forth  from  it  and 
presents  itself  before  us.  Thus  do  they  argue,  not 
perceiving  that  their  determination  of  the  primitive 
germ  is  only  an  a  priori  assumption  of  agnostic  and 
evolutionist  philosophy,  and  that  the  germ  itself  has 
been  gratuitously  defined  so  that  it  may  fit  in  with 
their  contention. 

But  while  they  endeavour  by  this  line  of  reasoning 
to  prove  and  plead  for  the  Catholic  religion,  these 
new  apologists  are  more  than  willing  to  grant  and  to 
recognise  that  there  are  in  it  many  things  which  are 
repulsive.  Nay,  they  admit  openly,  and  with  ill- 
concealed  satisfaction,  that  they  have  found  that 
even  its  dogma  is  not  exempt  from  errors  and  con- 
tradictions. They  add  also  that  this  is  not  only 
excusable  but  —  curiously  enough  —  that  it  is  even 
right  and  proper.  In  the  Sacred  Books  there  are 
many  passages  referring  to  science  or  history  where, 
according  to  them,  manifest  errors  are  to  be  found. 
But,  they  say,  the  subject  of  these  books  is  not 
science  or  history,  but  only  religion  and  morals.  In 
them  history  and  science  serve  only  as  a  species  of 
covering  to  enable  the  religious  and  moral  ex- 
periences  wrapped  up  in  them  to  penetrate   more 


Encyclical  Letter  209 

readily  among  the  masses.  The  masses  understood 
science  and  history  as  they  are  expressed  in  these 
books,  and  it  is  clear  that  the  expression  of  science 
and  history  in  a  more  perfect  form  would  have 
proved  not  so  much  a  help  as  a  hindrance.  More- 
over, they  add,  the  Sacred  Books  being  essentially 
religious,  are  necessarily  quick  with  life.  Now  life 
has  its  own  truth  and  its  own  logic — quite  different 
from  rational  truth  and  rational  logic,  belonging  as 
they  do  to  a  different  order,  viz.,  truth  of  adapta- 
tion and  of  proportion  both  with  what  they  call  the 
medium  in  which  it  lives  and  with  the  end  for  which 
it  lives.  Finally,  the  Modernists,  losing  all  sense  of 
control,  go  so  far  as  to  proclaim  as  true  and  legiti- 
mate whatever  is  explained  by  life. 

We,  Venerable  Brethren,  for  whom  there  is  but 
one  and  only  truth,  and  who  hold  that  the  Sacred 
Books,  written  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ^  have  God  for  their  author  *  declare  that  this 
is  equivalent  to  attributing  to  God  Himself  the  lie 
of  utility  or  officious  lie,  and  We  say  with  S.  Augus- 
tine :  In  an  authority  so  high^  admit  but  one  officious 
lie^  and  there  will  not  remain  a  single  passage  of  those 
appare7itly  difficult  to  practise  or  to  believe,  whicJi  on 
the  same  most  pernicious  rule  may  7iot  be  explained  as 
a  lie  uttered  by  the  atitJior  wilfully  and  to  serve  a 
purpose,^     And  thus  it  will  come  about,  the  holy 

*  Cone.  Vat.,  De  Revel.,  c.  2.  f  Epist.  28. 


2IO    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

Doctor  continues  that  everybody  will  believe  and  re- 
fuse to  believe  what  he  likes  or  dislikes  in  thefn^  namely, 
the  Scriptures.  But  the  Modernists  pursue  their 
way  eagerly.  They  grant  also  that  certain  argu- 
ments adduced  in  the  Sacred  Books  in  proof  of  a 
given  doctrine,  like  those,  for  example,  which  are 
based  on  the  prophecies,  have  no  rational  foundation 
to  rest  on.  But  they  defend  even  these  as  artifices 
of  preaching,  which  are  justified  by  life.  More  than 
that.  They  are  ready  to  admit,  nay,  to  proclaim, 
that  Christ  Himself  manifestly  erred  in  determining 
the  time  when  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
was  to  take  place ;  and  they  tell  us  that  we  must 
not  be  surprised  at  this  since  even  He  Himself  was 
subject  to  the  laws  of  life  !  After  this  what  is  to 
become  of  the  dogmas  of  the  Church  ?  The  dogmas 
bristle  with  flagrant  contradictions,  but  what  does  it 
matter  since,  apart  from  the  fact  that  vital  logic 
accepts  them,  they  are  not  repugnant  to  symbolical 
truth.  Are  we  not  dealing  with  the  infinite,  and  has 
not  the  infinite  an  infinite  variety  of  aspects?  In 
short,  to  maintain  and  defend  these  theories  they  do 
not  hesitate  to  declare  that  the  noblest  homage  that 
can  be  paid  to  the  Infinite  is  to  make  it  the  object 
of  contradictory  statements  !  But  when  they  justify 
even  contradictions,  what  is  it  that  they  will  refuse 
to  justify  ? 


Encyclical  Letter  211 

[SUBJECTIVE  arguments] 

But  it  is  not  solely  by  objective  arguments  that  the 
non-believer  may  be  disposed  to  faith.  There  are 
also  those  that  are  subjective,  and  for  this  purpose 
the  Modernist  Apologists  return  to  the  doctrine  of 
immanence.  They  endeavour,  in  fact,  to  persuade 
their  non-believer  that  down  in  the  very  depths  of 
his  nature  and  his  life  lie  hidden  the  need  and  the 
desire  for  some  religion,  and  this  not  a  religion  of 
any  kind,  but  the  specific  religion  known  as  Catholic^ 
ism,  which,  they  say,  is  ^kis>o\\xt€iy  postulated  by  the 
perfect  development  of  life.  And  here  again  We 
have  grave  reason  to  complain  that  there  are  Cath- 
olics who,  while  rejecting  immanence  as  a  doctrine, 
employ  it  as  a  method  of  apologetics,  and  who  do 
this  so  imprudently  that  they  seem  to  admit,  not 
merely  a  capacity  and  a  suitability  for  the  super- 
natural, such  as  has  at  all  times  been  emphasised, 
within  due  limits  by  Catholic  apologists,  but  that 
there  is  in  human  nature  a  true  and  rigorous  need 
for  the  supernatural  order.  Truth  to  tell,  it  is  only 
the  moderate  Modernists  who  make  this  appeal  to 
an  exigency  for  the  Catholic  religion.  As  for  the 
others,  who  might  be  called  integralists,  they  would 
show  to  the  non-believer,  as  hidden  in  his  being,  the 
very  germ  which  Christ  Himself  had  in  His  con- 
sciousness, and  which  He  transmitted  to  mankind. 


212    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

Such,  Venerable  Brethren,  is  a  summary  description 
of  the  apologetic  method  of  the  Modernists,  in  per- 
fect harmony  with  their  doctrines — methods  and 
doctrines  replete  with  errors,  made  not  for  edifica- 
tion but  for  destruction,  not  for  the  making  of 
Catholics  but  for  the  seduction  of  those  who  are 
Catholics  into  heresy ;  and  tending  to  the  utter 
subversion  of  all  religion. 

[the  modernist  as  reformer] 

It  remains  for  Us  now  to  say  a  few  words  about 
the  Modernist  as  reformer.  From  all  that  has  pre- 
ceded, it  is  abundantly  clear  how  great  and  how 
eager  is  the  passion  of  such  men  for  innovation.  In 
all  Catholicism  there  is  absolutely  nothing  on  which 
it  does  not  fasten.  They  wish  philosophy  to  be  re- 
formed, especially  in  the  ecclesiastical  seminaries. 
They  wish  the  scholastic  philosophy  to  be  relegated 
to  the  history  of  philosophy  and  to  be  classed 
among  obsolete  systems,  and  the  young  men  to  be 
taught  modern  philosophy  which  alone  is  true  and 
suited  to  the  times  in  which  we  live.  They  desire 
the  reform  of  theology  :  rational  theology  is  to  have 
modern  philosophy  for  its  foundation,  and  positive 
theology  is  to  be  founded  on  the  history  of  dogma. 
As  for  history,  it  must  be  written  and  taught  only 
according  to  their  methods  and  modern  principles. 
Dogmas  and  their  evolution,  they  affirm,  are  to  be 


Encyclical  Letter  213 

harmonised  with  science  and  history.  In  the  Cate- 
chism no  dogmas  are  to  be  inserted  except  those 
that  have  been  reformed  and  are  within  the  capacity 
of  the  people.  Regarding  worship,  they  say,  the 
number  of  external  devotions  is  to  be  reduced,  and 
steps  must  be  taken  to  prevent  their  further  increase, 
though,  indeed,  some  of  the  admirers  of  symbolism 
are  disposed  to  be  more  indulgent  on  this  head. 
They  cry  out  that  ecclesiastical  government  requires 
to  be  reformed  in  all  its  branches,  but  especially  in 
its  disciplinary  and  dogmatic  departments.  They 
insist  that  both  outwardly  and  inwardly  it  must  be 
brought  into  harmony  with  the  modern  conscience, 
which  now  wholly  tends  towards  democracy ;  a 
share  in  ecclesiastical  government  should  therefore 
be  given  to  the  lower  ranks  of  the  clergy,  and  even 
to  the  laity,  and  authority  which  is  too  much  con- 
centrated, should  be  decentralised.  The  Roman 
Congregations,  and  especially  the  Index  and  the 
Holy  Office,  must  be  likewise  modified.  The  ecclesi- 
astical authority  must  alter  its  line  of  conduct  in  the 
social  and  political  world ;  while  keeping  outside 
poHtical  organisations,  it  must  adapt  itself  to  them, 
in  order  to  penetrate  them  with  its  spirit.  With 
regard  to  morals,  they  adopt  the  principle  of  the 
Americanists,  that  the  active  virtues  are  more  im- 
portant than  the  passive,  and  are  to  be  more  encour- 
aged in  practice.     They  ask  that  the  clergy  should 


214    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

return  to  their  primitive  humility  and  poverty,  and 
that  in  their  ideas  and  action  they  should  admit  the 
principles  of  Modernism ;  and  there  are  some  who, 
gladly  listening  to  the  teaching  of  their  Protestant 
masters,  would  desire  the  suppression  of  the  celibacy 
of  the  clergy.  What  is  there  left  in  the  Church 
which  is  not  to  be  reformed  by  them  and  according 
to  their  principles  ? 

[modernism  the  synthesis  of  all  the 
heresies] 

It  may,  perhaps,  seem  to  some,  Venerable  Breth- 
ren, that  We  have  dwelt  at  too  great  length  on  this 
exposition  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Modernists.  But 
it  was  necessary  that  We  should  do  so,  both  in  order 
to  meet  their  customary  charge  that  We  do  not 
understand  their  ideas,  and  to  show  that  their 
system  does  not  consist  in  scattered  and  uncon- 
nected theories,  but,  as  it  were,  in  a  closely  connected 
whole,  so  that  it  is  not  possible  to  admit  one  without 
admitting  all.  For  this  reason,  too,  We  have  had 
to  give  to  this  exposition  a  somewhat  didactic  form, 
and  not  to  shrink  from  employing  certain  unwonted 
terms  which  the  Modernists  have  brought  into  use. 
And  now  with  Our  eyes  fixed  upon  the  whole 
system,  no  one  will  be  surprised  that  We  should 
define  it  to  be  the  synthesis  of  all  heresies  ?  Un- 
doubtedly,  were   anyone   to  attempt   the    task  of 


Encyclical  Letter  215 

collecting  together  all  the  errors  that  have  been 
broached  against  the  faith  and  to  concentrate  into 
one  the  sap  and  substance  of  them  all,  he  could  not 
succeed  in  doing  so  better  than  the  Modernists  have 
done.  Nay,  they  have  gone  farther  than  this,  for, 
as  We  have  already  intimated,  their  system  means 
the  destruction  not  of  the  Catholic  religion  alone, 
but  of  all  religion.  Hence  the  rationalists  are  not 
wanting  in  their  applause,  and  the  most  frank  and 
sincere  amongst  them  congratulate  themselves  in 
having  found  in  the  Modernists  the  most  valuable 
of  all  allies. 

Let  us  turn  for  a  moment,  Venerable  Brethren,  to 
that  most  disastrous  doctrine  of  agnosticism.  By  it 
every  avenue  to  God  on  the  side  of  the  intellect  is 
barred  to  man,  while  a  better  way  is  supposed  to  be 
opened  from  the  side  of  a  certain  sense  of  the  soul 
and  action.  But  who  does  not  see  how  mistaken  is 
such  a  contention  ?  For  the  sense  of  the  soul  is  the 
response  to  the  action  of  the  thing  which  the  intel- 
lect or  the  outward  senses  set  before  it.  Take  away 
the  intelligence,  and  man,  already  inclined  to  follow 
the  senses,  becomes  their  slave.  Doubly  mistaken, 
from  another  point  of  view,  for  all  these  fantasies  of 
the  religious  sense  will  never  be  able  to  destroy 
common  sense,  and  common  sense  tells  us  that  emo- 
tion and  everything  that  leads  the  heart  captive 
proves  a  hindrance  instead  of  a  help  to  the  discovery 


2i6    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

of  truth.  We  speak  of  truth  in  itself — for  that  other 
purely  subjective  truth  the  fruit  of  the  internal  sense 
and  action,  if  it  serves  its  purpose  for  the  play  of 
words,  is  of  no  benefit  to  the  man  who  wants  above 
all  things  to  know  whether  outside  himself  there  is 
a  God  into  whose  hands  he  is  one  day  to  fall.  True, 
the  Modernists  call  in  experience  to  eke  out  their 
system,  but  what  does  this  experience  add  to  that 
sense  of  the  soul  ?  Absolutely  nothing  beyond  a 
certain  intensity  and  a  proportionate  deepening  of 
the  conviction  of  the  reality  of  the  object.  But 
these  two  will  never  make  the  sense  of  the  soul  into 
anything  but  sense,  nor  will  they  alter  its  nature, 
which  is  liable  to  deception  when  the  intelligence  is 
not  there  to  guide  it ;  on  the  contrary,  they  but 
confirm  and  strengthen  this  nature,  for  the  more  in- 
tense the  sense  is  the  more  it  is  really  sense.  And 
as  we  are  here  dealing  with  religious  sense  and  the 
experience  involved  in  it,  it  is  known  to  you.  Vener- 
able Brethren,  how  necessary  in  such  a  matter  is 
prudence,  and  the  learning  by  which  prudence  is 
guided.  You  know  it  from  your  own  dealings  with 
souls,  and  especially  with  souls  in  whom  sentiment 
predominates;  you  know  it  also  from  your  reading 
of  works  of  ascetical  theology — works  for  which  the 
Modernists  have  but  little  esteem,  but  which  testify 
to  a  science  and  a  solidity  far  greater  than  theirs, 
and  to  a  refinement  and  subtlety  of  observation  far 


Encyclical  Letter  217 

beyond  any  which  the  Modernists  take  credit  to 
themselves  for  possessing.  It  seems  to  Us  nothing 
short  of  madness,  or  at  the  least  consummate  te- 
merity, to  accept  for  true,  and  without  investigation, 
these  incomplete  experiences  which  are  the  vaunt  of 
the  Modernist.  Let  us  for  a  moment  put  the  ques- 
tion :  If  experiences  have  so  much  force  and  value 
in  their  estimation,  why  do  they  not  attach  equal 
weight  to  the  experience  that  so  many  thousands  of 
Catholics  have  that  the  Modernists  are  on  the  wrong 
path?  Is  it  that  the  Catholic  experiences  are  the 
only  ones  which  are  false  and  deceptive  ?  The  vast 
majority  of  mankind  holds  and  always  will  hold 
firmly  that  sense  and  experience  alone,  when  not 
enhghtened  and  guided  by  reason,  cannot  reach  to 
the  knowledge  of  God.  What,  then,  remains  but 
atheism  and  the  absence  of  all  religion.  Certainly 
it  is  not  the  doctrine  of  symbolism  that  will  save  us 
from  this.  For  if  all  the  intellectual  elements,  as 
they  call  them,  of  religion  are  nothing  more  than 
mere  symbols  of  God,  will  not  the  very  name  of  God 
or  of  divine  personality  be  also  a  symbol,  and  if  this 
be  admitted,  the  personality  of  God  will  become  a 
matter  of  doubt  and  the  gate  will  be  opened  to 
Pantheism?  And  to  Pantheism  pure  and  simple 
that  other  doctrine  of  the  divine  immanence  leads  di- 
rectly. For  this  is  the  question  which  We  ask: 
Does  or  does  not  this  immanence  leave  God  distinct 


2i8    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

from  man  ?  If  it  does,  in  what  does  it  differ  from 
the  Catholic  doctrine,  and  why  does  it  reject  the 
doctrine  of  external  revelation  ?  If  it  does  not,  it  is 
Pantheism.  Now  the  doctrine  of  immanence  in  the 
Modernist  acceptation  holds  and  professes  that  every 
phenomenon  of  conscience  proceeds  from  man  as 
man.  The  rigorous  conclusion  from  this  is  the 
identity  of  man  with  God,  which  means  Pantheism. 
The  distinction  which  Modernists  make  between 
science  and  faith  leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  The 
object  of  science,  they  say,  is  the  reality  of  the 
knowable;  the  object  of  faith,  on  the  contrary,  is 
the  reality  of  the  unknowable.  Now,  what  makes 
the  unknowable  unknowable  is  the  fact  that  there  is 
no  proportion  between  its  object  and  the  intellect — 
a  defect  of  proportion  which  nothing  whatever,  even 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  Modernist,  can  suppress. 
Hence  the  unknowable  remains  and  will  eternally 
remain  unknowable  to  the  believer  as  well  as  to  the 
philosopher.  Therefore  if  any  religion  at  all  is  pos- 
sible, it  can  only  be  the  religion  of  an  unknowable 
reality.  And  why  this  religion  might  not  be  that 
soul  of  the  universe,  of  which  certain  rationalists 
speak,  is  something  which  certainly  does  not  seem 
to  Us  apparent.  These  reasons  suffice  to  show 
superabundantly  by  how  many  roads  Modernism 
leads  to  atheism  and  to  the  annihilation  of  all  re- 
ligion.    The  error  of  Protestantism  made  the  first 


Encyclical  Letter  219 

step  on  this  path  ;    that  of    Modernism  makes  the 
second ;  Atheism  makes  the  next. 

[PART  II.— THE   CAUSE   OF  MODERNISM] 

To  penetrate  still  deeper  into  the  meaning  of 
Modernism  and  to  find  a  suitable  remedy  for  so 
deep  a  sore,  it  behoves  Us,  Venerable  Brethren,  to 
investigate  the  causes  which  have  engendered  it  and 
which  foster  its  growth.  That  the  proximate  and 
immediate  cause  consists  in  an  error  of  the  mind 
cannot  be  open  to  doubt.  We  recognise  that  the 
remote  causes  may  be  reduced  to  two  :  curiosity  and 
pride.  Curiosity  by  itself,  if  not  prudently  regu- 
lated, suffices  to  account  for  all  errors.  Such  is  the 
opinion  of  Our  Predecessor,  Gregory  XVI.,  who 
wrote  :  A  lamentable  spectacle  is  that  presented  by  the 
aberrations  of  human  reason  when  it  yields  to  the 
spirit  of  novelty^  when  against  the  war7iing  of 
the  Apostle  it  seeks  to  know  beyond  what  it  is  meant 
to  know,  and  when  relying  too  much  on  itself  it  thinks 
it  can  find  the  truth  outside  the  Catholic  Church 
wherein  truth  is  found  without  the  slightest  shadow 
of  error  !^ 

But  it  is  pride  which  exercises  an  incomparably 
greater  sway  over  the  soul  to  blind  it  and  lead  it 
into  error,  and  pride  sits  in  Modernism  as  in  its  own 
house,  finding  sustenance  everywhere  in  its  doctrines 


*  Ep.  Encycl.  Singulari  Nos^  7  Kal.  Jul.  1834. 


2  20    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

and  lurking  in  its  every  aspect.  It  is  pride  which 
fills  Modernists  with  that  self-assurance  by  which 
they  consider  themselves  and  pose  as  the  rule  for 
all.  It  is  pride  which  puffs  them  up  with  that  vain- 
glory which  allows  them  to  regard  themselves  as  the 
sole  possessors  of  knowledge,  and  makes  them  say, 
elated  and  inflated  with  presumption,  We  are  not  as 
the  rest  of  me7t,  and  which,  lest  they  should  seem  as 
other  men,  leads  them  to  embrace  and  to  devise 
novelties  even  of  the  most  absurd  kind.  It  is  pride 
which  rouses  in  them  the  spirit  of  disobedience  and 
causes  them  to  demand  a  compromise  between 
authority  and  liberty.  It  is  owing  to  their  pride 
that  they  seek  to  be  the  reformers  of  others  while 
they  forget  to  reform  themselves,  and  that  they  are 
found  to  be  utterly  wanting  in  respect  for  authority, 
even  for  the  supreme  authority.  Truly  there  is  no 
road  which  leads  so  directly  and  so  quickly  to 
Modernism  as  pride.  When  a  Catholic  layman  or  a 
priest  forgets  the  precept  of  the  Christian  life  which 
obliges  us  to  renounce  ourselves  if  we  would  follow 
Christ  and  neglects  to  tear  pride  from  his  heart, 
then  it  is  he  who  most  of  all  is  a  fully  ripe  subject 
for  the  errors  of  Modernism.  For  this  reason,  Ven- 
erable Brethren,  it  will  be  your  first  duty  to  resist 
such  victims  of  pride,  to  employ  them  only  in  the 
lowest  and  obscurest  offices.  The  higher  they  try 
to  rise,  the  lower  let  them  be  placed,  so  that  the 


Encyclical  Letter  221 

lowliness  of  their  position  may  limit  their  power  of 
causing  damage.  Examine  most  carefully  your 
young  clerics  by  yourselves  and  by  the  directors  of 
your  seminaries,  and  when  you  find  the  spirit  of 
pride  amongst  them  reject  them  without  compunc- 
tion from  the  priesthood.  Would  to  God  that  this 
had  always  been  done  with  the  vigilance  and 
constancy  which  were  required ! 

If  we  pass  on  from  the  moral  to  the  intellectual 
causes  of  Modernism,  the  first  and  the  chief  which 
presents  itself  is  ignorance.  Yes,  these  very  Modern- 
ists who  seek  to  be  esteemed  as  Doctors  of  the 
Church,  who  speak  so  loftily  of  modern  philosophy 
and  show  such  contempt  for  scholasticism,  have 
embraced  the  one  with  all  its  false  glamour,  pre- 
cisely because  their  ignorance  of  the  other  has  left 
them  without  the  means  of  being  able  to  recognise 
confusion  of  thought  and  to  refute  sophistry.  Their 
whole  system,  containing  as  it  does  errors  so  many 
and  so  great,  has  been  born  of  the  union  between 
faith  and  false  philosophy. 

[methods  of  propagandism] 

Would  that  they  had  but  displayed  less  zeal  and 
energy  in  propagating  it !  But  such  is  their  activity 
and  such  their  unwearying  labour  on  behalf  of  their 
cause,  that  one  cannot  but  be  pained  to  see  them 
waste  such  energy  in  endeavouring  to  ruin  the  Church 


222    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

when  they  might  have  been  of  such  service  to  her  had 
their  efforts  been  better  directed.  Their  artifices 
to  delude  men's  minds  are  of  two  kinds,  the  first  to 
remove  obstacles  from  their  path,  the  second  to 
devise  and  apply  actively  and  patiently  every  re- 
source that  can  serve  their  purpose.  They  recognise 
that  the  three  chief  difficulties  which  stand  in  their 
way  are  the  scholastic  method  of  philosophy,  the 
authority  and  Tradition  of  the  Fathers,  and  the 
magisterium  of  the  Church,  and  on  these  they  wage 
unrelenting  war.  Against  scholastic  philosophy  and 
theology  they  use  the  weapons  of  ridicule  and  con- 
tempt. Whether  it  is  ignorance  or  fear,  or  both, 
that  inspires  this  conduct  in  them,  certain  it  is  that 
the  passion  for  novelty  is  always  united  in  them  with 
hatred  of  scholasticism,  and  there  is  no  surer  sign 
that  a  man  is  tending  to  Modernism  than  when  he 
begins  to  show  his  dislike  for  the  scholastic  method. 
Let  the  Modernists  and  their  admirers  remember  the 
proposition  condemned  by  Pius  IX. :  The  method 
and  principles  which  have  served  the  ancient  doctors 
of  scholasticism  when  treating  of  theology  no  longer 
correspond  with  the  exigencies  of  our  time  or  the 
progress  of  science.  *  They  exercise  all  their  inge- 
nuity in  an  effort  to  weaken  the  force  and  falsify  the 
character  of  tradition,  so  as  to  rob  it  of  all  its  weight 


*Syll.  Prop.  13. 


Encyclical  Letter  223 

and  authority.  But  for  Catholics  nothing  will  remove 
the  authority  of  the  second  Council  of  Nicea,  where 
it  condemns  those  who  dare^  after  the  impious  fashion 
of  heretics,  to  deride  the  ecclesiastical  traditions,  to 
invent  novelties  of  some  kind  ,  .  ,  or  endeavour  by 
fnalice  or  craft  to  overthrow  any  one  of  the  legiti- 
mate traditions  of  the  Catholic  Church;  nor  that  of 
the  declaration  of  the  fourth  Council  of  Constantino- 
ple :  We  therefore  profess  to  preserve  and  guard  the 
rules  bequeathed  to  the  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church,  by  the  Holy  and  most  ilhistrious  Apostles,  by 
the  orthodox  Councils,  both  general  and  local,  and  by 
every  one  of  those  divine  interpreters,  the  Fathers  and 
Doctors  of  the  Church.  Wherefore  the  Roman  Pon- 
tiffs, Pius  IV.  and  Pius  IX.,  ordered  the  insertion  in 
the  profession  of  faith  of  the  following  declaration : 
/  7nost  firmly  admit  and  embrace  the  apostolic  and 
ecclesiastical  traditions  aftd other  observances  and  con- 
stitutions of  the  Church. 

The  Modernists  pass  judgment  on  the  holy  Fathers 
of  the  Church  even  as  they  do  upon  tradition.  With 
consummate  temerity  they  assure  the  public  that 
the  Fathers,  while  personally  most  worthy  of  all 
veneration,  were  entirely  ignorant  of  history  and 
criticism,  for  which  they  are  only  excusable  on 
account  of  the  time  in  which  they  Hved.  Finally, 
the  Modernists  try  in  every  way  to  diminish  and 
weaken   the   authority   of   the  ecclesiastical  magis- 


2  24    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

terium  itself  by  sacrilegiously  falsifying  its  origin, 
character,  and  rights,  and  by  freely  repeating  the 
calumnies  of  its  adversaries.  To  the  entire  band  of 
Modernists  may  be  applied  those  words  which  Our 
Predecessor  sorrowfully  wrote :  To  bring  contempt 
and  odium  on  the  mystic  Spouse  of  Christy  who  is  the 
true  light,  the  children  of  darkness  have  been  wont  to 
cast  in  her  face  before  the  world  a  stupid  calumny, 
a7id perverting  the  meanhig  a^id  force  of  things  and 
words,  to  depict  her  as  the  friend  of  darkness  and 
ignorance,  and  the  enemy  of  light,  science,  and  prog- 
ress,'^ This  being  so,  Venerable  Brethren,  there 
is  little  reason  to  wonder  that  the  Modernists  vent 
all  their  bitterness  and  hatred  on  Catholics  who  zeal- 
ously fight  the  battles  of  the  Church.  There  is  no 
species  of  insult  which  they  do  not  heap  upon  them, 
but  their  usual  course  is  to  charge  them  with  ignor- 
ance or  obstinacy.  When  an  adversary  rises  up 
against  them  with  an  erudition  and  force  that  render 
him  redoubtable,  they  seek  to  make  a  conspiracy  of 
silence  around  him  to  nullify  the  effects  of  his 
attack.  The  policy  towards  Catholics  is  the  more 
invidious  in  that  they  belaud  with  admiration  which 
knows  no  bounds  the  writers  who  range  them- 
selves on  their  side,  hailing  their  works,  exuding 
novelty  in  every  page,  with  a  chorus  of  applause. 


*  Motu  Proprio,  Ut  Mystictim,  14  March,  1891. 


Encyclical  Letter  225 

For  them  the  scholarship  of  a  writer  is  in  direct  pro- 
portion to  the  recklessness  of  his  attacks  on  antiquity, 
and  of  his  efforts  to  undermine  tradition  and  the 
ecclesiastical  magisterium.  When  one  of  their  num- 
ber falls  under  the  condemnation  of  the  Church  the 
rest  of  them,  to  the  disgust  of  good  Catholics,  gather 
round  him,  loudly  and  pubhcly  applaud  him,  and 
hold  him  up  in  veneration  as  almost  a  martyr  for 
truth.  The  young,  excited  and  confused  by  all  this 
clamour  of  praise  and  abuse,  some  of  them  afraid  of 
being  branded  as  ignorant,  others  ambitious  to  rank 
among  the  learned,  and  both  classes  goaded  inter- 
nally by  curiosity  and  pride,  not  unfrequently  sur- 
render and  give  themselves  up  to  Modernism. 

And  here  we  have  already  some  of  the  artifices 
employed  by  Modernists  to  exploit  their  wares. 
What  efforts  do  they  not  make  to  win  new  recruits ! 
They  seize  upon  professorships  in  the  seminaries 
and  universities,  and  gradually  make  of  them  chairs 
of  pestilence.  In  sermons  from  the  pulpit  they  dis- 
seminate their  doctrines,  although  possibly  in  utter- 
ances which  are  veiled.  In  congresses  they  express 
their  teachings  more  openly.  In  their  social  gather- 
ings they  introduce  them  and  commend  them  to 
others.  Under  their  own  names  and  under  pseu- 
donyms they  publish  numbers  of  books,  newspapers, 
reviews,  and  sometimes  one  and  the  same  writer 
adopts  a  variety  of  pseudonyms  to  trap  the  incau- 


226    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

tious  reader  into  believing  in  a  multitude  of  Mod- 
ernist writers.  In  short,  with  feverish  activity  they 
leave  nothing  untried  in  act,  speech,  and  writing. 
And  with  what  result?  We  have  to  deplore  the 
spectacle  of  many  young  men,  once  full  of  promise 
and  capable  of  rendering  great  services  to  the 
Church,  now  gone  astray.  It  is  also  a  subject  of 
grief  to  Us  that  many  others  who,  while  they  cer- 
tainly do  not  go  so  far  as  the  former,  have  yet  been 
so  infected  by  breathing  a  poisoned  atmosphere,  as 
to  think,  speak,  and  write  with  a  degree  of  laxity 
which  ill  becomes  a  Catholic.  They  are  to  be  found 
among  the  laity,  and  in  the  ranks  of  the  clergy,  and 
they  are  not  wanting  even  in  the  last  place  where 
one  might  expect  to  meet  them,  in  religious  com- 
munities. If  they  treat  of  biblical  questions,  it  is 
upon  Modernist  principles ;  if  they  write  history, 
they  carefully,  and  with  ill-concealed  satisfaction, 
drag  into  the  light,  on  the  plea  of  telling  the  whole 
truth,  everything  that  appears  to  cast  a  stain  upon 
the  Church.  Under  the  sway  of  certain  a  priori  con- 
ceptions they  destroy  as  far  as  they  can  the  pious 
traditions  of  the  people,  and  bring  into  disrespect 
certain  relics  highly  venerable  from  their  antiquity. 
They  are  possessed  by  the  empty  desire  of  having 
their  names  upon  the  lips  of  the  public,  and  they 
know  they  would  never  succeed  in  this  were  they  to 
say  only  what  has   always  been  said  by  all  men. 


Encyclical  Letter  227 

Meanwhile  it  may  be  that  they  have  persuaded 
themselves  that  in  all  this  they  are  really  serving 
God  and  the  Church.  In  reality  they  only  offend 
both,  less  perhaps  by  their  works  in  themselves  than 
by  the  spirit  in  which  they  write,  and  by  the 
encouragement  they  thus  give  to  the  aims  of  the 
Modernists. 

[PART   III.— REMEDIES] 

Against  this  host  of  grave  errors,  and  its  secret 
and  open  advance.  Our  Predecessor,  Leo  XIII., 
of  happy  memory,  worked  strenuously,  both  in  his 
words  and  acts,  especially  as  regards  the  study  of 
the  Bible.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Modernists 
are  not  easily  deterred  by  such  weapons.  With  an 
affectation  of  great  submission  and  respect,  they 
proceeded  to  twist  the  words  of  the  Pontiff  to  their 
own  sense,  while  they  described  his  action  as  directed 
against  others  than  themselves.  Thus  the  evil  has 
gone  on  increasing  from  day  to  day.  We,  therefore. 
Venerable  Brethren,  have  decided  to  suffer  no  longer 
delay,  and  to  adopt  measures  which  are  more  effi- 
cacious. We  exhort  and  conjure  you  to  see  to  it 
that  in  this  most  grave  matter  no  one  shall  be  in  a 
position  to  say  that  you  have  been  in  the  slightest 
degree  wanting  in  vigilance,  zeal,  or  firmness.  And 
what  We  ask  of  you  and  expect  of  you.  We  ask  and 
expect  also  of  all  other  pastors  of  souls,  of  all  edu- 


228    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

cators  and  professors  of  clerics,  and  in  a  very  special 
way  of  the  superiors  of  religious  communities. 

[I.— THE  STUDY  OF  SCHOLASTIC  PHILOSOPHY] 

I.  In  the  first  place,  with  regard  to  studies,  We 
will  and  strictly  ordain  that  scholastic  philosophy 
be  made  the  basis  of  the  sacred  sciences.  It  goes 
without  saying  that  if  anythmg  is  met  with  among 
the  scholastic  doctors  which  may  be  regarded  as  some- 
thing investigated  with  an  excess  of  subtlety^  or  taught 
without  sufficient  co7tsideration ;  anything  which  is 
not  in  keeping  with  the  certain  results  of  later  times  ; 
anything^  in  shorty  which  is  altogether  destitute  of 
probability y  We  have  no  desire  whatever  to  propose  it 
for  the  imitation  of  present  generations!^  And  let 
it  be  clearly  understood  above  all  things  that  when 
We  prescribe  scholastic  philosophy  We  understand 
chiefly  that  which  the  Angelic  Doctor  has  bequeathed 
to  us,  and  We,  therefore,  declare  that  all  the  ordin- 
ances of  Our  Predecessor  on  this  subject  continue 
fully  in  force,  and,  as  far  as  may  be  necessary.  We 
do  decree  anew,  and  confirm,  and  order  that  they 
shall  be  strictly  observed  by  all.  In  seminaries 
where  they  have  been  neglected  it  will  be  for  the 
Bishops  to  exact  and  require  their  observance  in  the 
future ;  and  let  this  apply  also  to  the  Superiors  of 


*  Leo  XIII.,  Enc.  Aeterni  Patris. 


Encyclical  Letter  229 

religious  orders.  Further,  We  admonish  Professors 
to  bear  well  in  mind  that  they  cannot  set  aside 
S.  Thomas,  especially  in  metaphysical  questions, 
without  grave  disadvantage. 

On  this  philosophical  foundation  the  theological 
edifice  is  to  be  carefully  raised.  Promote  the  study 
of  theology,  Venerable  Brethren,  by  all  means  in 
your  power,  so  that  your  clerics  on  leaving  the 
seminaries  may  carry  with  them  a  deep  admiration 
and  love  of  it,  and  always  find  in  it  a  source  of 
delight.  For  in  the  vast  and  varied  abundance  of 
studies  opening  before  the  mind  desirous  of  truths  it  is 
known  to  everyone  that  theology  occupies  such  a  com- 
manding place,  that  according  to  an  ancient  adage  of 
the  wise,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  other  arts  and  sciences 
to  serve  it,  and  to  wait  upon  it  after  the  majtner  of 
handmaidens.'^  We  will  add  that  We  deem  worthy 
of  praise  those  who  with  full  respect  for  tradition, 
the  Fathers,  and  the  ecclesiastical  magisterium,  en- 
deavour, with  well-balanced  judgment,  and  guided 
by  Catholic  principles  (which  is  not  always  the  case), 
to  illustrate  positive  theology  by  throwing  upon  it 
the  light  of  true  history.  It  is  certainly  necessary 
that  positive  theology  should  be  held  in  greater 
appreciation  than  it  has  been  in  the  past,  but  this 
must  be  done  without  detriment  to  scholastic  the- 
ology ;  and  those  are  to  be  disapproved  as  Modern- 

*  Leo  XIII.,  Lett.  ap.  In  Alagna,  Dec.  lo,  1889. 


230    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

ists  who  exalt  positive  theology  in  such  a  way  as  to 
seem  to  despise  the  scholastic. 

With  regard  to  secular  studies,  let  it  suffice  to 
recall  here  what  Our  Predecessor  has  admirably  said  : 
Apply  yourselves  energetically  to  the  study  of  natural 
sciences  :  in  which  department  the  tilings  that  have 
been  so  brilliantly  discovered,  and  so  usefully  applied, 
to  the  admiration  of  the  present  age,  will  be  the  object 
of  praise  and  commendation  to  those  who  come  after 
us!^  But  this  is  to  be  done  without  interfering  with 
sacred  studies,  as  Our  same  Predecessor  described 
in  these  most  weighty  words :  If  you  carefully  search 
for  the  cause  of  those  errors  you  will  fi^id  that  it 
lies  in  the  fact  that  in  these  days  when  the  natural 
sciences  absorb  so  much  study y  the  more  severe  and 
lofty  studies  have  been  proportionately  neglected — 
some  of  them  have  almost  passed  into  oblivion^  some 
of  them  are  pursued  hi  a  half-hearted  or  superficial 
way,  and,  sad  to  say,  now  that  the  splendour  of  the 
former  estate  is  dimmed,  they  have  been  disfigured  by 
perverse  doctrines  and  monstrous  errors,^  We  ordain, 
therefore,  that  the  study  of  natural  sciences  in  the 
seminaries  be  carried  out  according  to  the  law. 

[2.— PRACTICAL  APPLICATION] 

2.  All  these  prescriptions,  both  Our  own  and  those 
of  Our  Predecessor,  are  to  be  kept  in  view  whenever 


*  Leo  XIII.,  Alloc.  March  7,  1880.  f  Loco.  cit. 


Encyclical  Letter  231 

there  is  question  of  choosing  directors  and  professors 
for  seminaries  and  Catholic  Universities.  Anyone 
who  in  any  way  is  found  to  be  tainted  with  Modern- 
ism is  to  be  excluded  without  compunction  from 
these  ofifices,  whether  of  government  or  of  teaching, 
and  those  who  already  occupy  them  are  to  be  re- 
moved. The  same  policy  is  to  be  adopted  towards 
those  who  openly  or  secretly  lend  countenance  to 
Modernism  either  by  extolling  the  Modernists  and 
excusing  their  culpable  conduct,  or  by  carping  at 
scholasticism,  and  the  Fathers,  and  the  magisterium 
of  the  Church,  or  by  refusing  obedience  to  ecclesias- 
tical authority  in  any  of  its  depositaries  ;  and  towards 
those  who  show  a  love  of  novelty  in  history,  archae- 
ology, biblical  exegesis ;  and  finally  towards  those 
who  neglect  the  sacred  sciences  or  appear  to  prefer 
to  them  the  secular.  In  all  this  question  of  studies. 
Venerable  Brethren,  you  cannot  be  too  watchful  or 
too  constant,  but  most  of  all  in  the  choice  of  pro- 
fessors, for  as  a  rule  the  students  are  modelled  after 
the  pattern  of  their  masters.  Strong  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  your  duty,  act  always  in  this  matter 
with  prudence  and  with  vigour. 

Equal  diligence  and  severity  are  to  be  used  in  ex- 
amining and  selecting  candidates  for  Holy  Orders. 
Far,  far  from  the  clergy  be  the  love  of  novelty ! 
God  hateth  the  proud  and  the  obstinate  mind.  For 
the  future  the  doctorate  of  theology  and  canon  law 


232    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

must  never  be  conferred  on  anyone  who  has  not 
first  of  all  made  the  regular  course  of  scholastic 
philosophy  ;  if  conferred,  it  shall  be  held  as  null  and 
void.  The  rules  laid  down  in  1896  by  the  Sacred 
Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars  for  the 
clerics,  both  secular  and  regular,  of  Italy,  concern- 
ing the  frequenting  of  the  Universities,  We  now  de- 
cree to  be  extended  to  all  nations.  Clerics  and 
priests  inscribed  in  a  Catholic  Institute  or  University 
must  not  in  the  future  follow  in  civil  Universities 
those  courses  for  which  there  are  chairs  in  the 
Catholic  Institutes  to  which  they  belong.  If  this 
has  been  permitted  anywhere  in  the  past.  We  ordain 
that  it  be  not  allowed  for  the  future.  Let  the  Bish- 
ops who  form  the  Governing  Board  of  such  Catholic 
Institutes  or  Universities  watch  with  all  care  that 
these  Our  commands  be  constantly  observed. 

[3.— EPISCOPAL     VIGILANCE    OVER     PUBLICATIONS] 

3.  It  is  also  the  duty  of  the  Bishops  to  prevent 
writings  of  Modernists,  or  whatever  savours  of  Mod- 
ernism or  promotes  it,  from  being  read  when  they 
have  been  published,  and  to  hinder  their  publication 
when  they  have  not.  No  books  or  papers  or  pe- 
riodicals whatever  of  this  kind  are  to  be  permitted 
to  seminarists  or  university  students.  The  injury  to 
them  would  be  not  less  than  that  which  is  caused 
by  immoral  reading — nay,  it  would  be  greater,  for 


Encyclical  Letter  233 

such  writings  poison  Christian  Hfe  at  its  very  fount. 
The  same  decision  is  to  be  taken  concerning  the 
writings  of  some  CathoHcs,  who,  though  not  evilly 
disposed  themselves,  are  ill-instructed  in  theological 
studies  and  imbued  with  modern  philosophy,  and 
strive  to  make  this  harmonise  with  the  faith,  and,  as 
they  say,  to  turn  it  to  the  profit  of  the  faith.  The 
name  and  reputation  of  these  authors  cause  them  to 
be  read  without  suspicion,  and  they  are,  therefore, 
all  the  more  dangerous  in  gradually  preparing  the 
way  for  Modernism. 

To  add  some  more  general  directions.  Venerable 
Brethren,  in  a  matter  of  such  moment,  We  order 
that  you  do  everything  in  your  power  to  drive  out 
of  your  dioceses,  even  by  solemn  interdict,  any 
pernicious  books  that  may  be  in  circulation  there. 
The  Holy  See  neglects  no  means  to  remove  writings 
of  this  kind,  but  their  number  has  now  grown  to 
such  an  extent  that  it  is  hardly  possible  to  subject 
them  all  to  censure.  Hence  it  happens  sometimes 
that  the  remedy  arrives  too  late,  for  the  disease  has 
taken  root  during  the  delay.  We  will,  therefore, 
that  the  Bishops,  putting  aside  all  fear  and  the 
prudence  of  the  flesh,  despising  the  clamour  of  evil 
men,  shall,  gently,  by  all  means,  but  firmly,  do 
each  his  own  part  in  this  work,  remembering  the 
injunctions  of  Leo  XHI.  in  the  Apostolic  Consti- 
tution Officiorum  :  Let  the  Ordinaries^  acting  in  this 


234    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

also  as  Delegates  of  the  Apostolic  See,  exert  themselves 
to  proscribe  and  to  put  out  of  reach  of  the  faithful 
injurious  books  or  other  writings  priitted  or  circulated 
in  their  dioceses.  In  this  passage  the  Bishops,  it  is 
true,  receive  an  authorisation,  but  they  have  also 
a  charge  laid  upon  them.  Let  no  Bishop  think  that 
he  fulfils  this  duty  by  denouncing  to  us  one  or  two 
^  ooks,  while  a  great  many  others  of  the  same  kind 
are  being  published  and  circulated.  Nor  are  you  to 
be  deterred  by  the  fact  that  a  book  has  obtained 
elsewhere  the  permission  which  is  commonly  called 
the  Imprimatur,  both  because  this  may  be  merely 
simulated,  and  because  it  may  have  been  granted 
through  carelessness  or  too  much  indulgence  or 
excessive  trust  placed  in  the  author,  which  last  has 
perhaps  sometimes  happened  in  the  religious  orders. 
Besides,  just  as  the  same  food  does  not  agree  with 
everyone,  it  may  happen  that  a  book,  harmless  in 
one  place,  may,  on  account  of  the  different  circum- 
stances, be  hurtful  in  another.  Should  a  Bishop, 
therefore,  after  having  taken  the  advice  of  prudent 
persons,  deem  it  right  to  condemn  any  such  books  in 
his  diocese.  We  give  him  ample  faculty  for  the  pur- 
pose and  We  lay  upon  him  the  obligation  of  doing 
so.  Let  all  this  be  done  in  a  fitting  manner,  and  in 
certain  cases  it  will  suffice  to  restrict  the  prohibition 
to  the  clergy ;  but  in  all  cases  it  will  be  obligatory 
on    Catholic  booksellers  not  to  put  on   sale  books 


Encyclical  Letter  235 

condemned  by  the  Bishop.  And  while  We  are 
treating  of  this  subject,  We  wish  the  Bishops  to  see 
to  it  that  booksellers  do  not,  through  desire  for 
gain,  engage  in  evil  trade.  It  is  certain  that  in  the 
catalogues  of  some  of  them  the  books  of  the  Modern- 
ists are  not  unfrcquently  announced  with  no  small 
praise.  If  they  refuse  obedience,  let  the  Bishops, 
after  due  admonition,  have  no  hesitation  in  depriv- 
ing them  of  the  title  of  Catholic  booksellers.  This 
applies,  and  with  still  more  reason,  to  those  who 
have  the  title  of  Episcopal  booksellers.  If  they 
have  that  of  Pontifical  booksellers  let  them  be  de- 
nounced to  the  Apostolic  See.  Finally,  We  remind 
all  of  Article  XXVI.  of  the  above-mentioned  Consti- 
tution OfficioruiJi :  All  those  who  have  obtained  an 
apostolic  faculty  to  read  and  keep  forbidden  books,  are 
not  thereby  authorised  to  read  and  keep  books  and 
periodicals  forbidden  by  the  local  Ordinaries  unless 
the  apostolic  faculty  expressly  concedes  permission  to 
read  and  keep  books  condemned  by  any  one  whom- 
soever. 

[4.— censorship] 

4.  It  is  not  enough  to  hinder  the  reading  and  the 
sale  of  bad  books — it  is  also  necessary  to  prevent 
them  from  being  published.  Hence,  let  the  Bishops 
use  the  utmost  strictness  in  granting  permission  to 


236    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

print.  Under  the  rules  of  the  Constitution  Offici- 
orum,  many  publications  require  the  authorisation 
of  the  Ordinary,  and  in  certain  dioceses  (since  the 
Bishop  cannot  personally  make  himself  acquainted 
with  them  all)  it  has  been  the  custom  to  have  a  suit- 
able number  of  official  censors  for  the  examination 
of  writings.  We  have  the  highest  esteem  for  this 
institution  of  censors,  and  We  not  only  exhort  but 
We  order  that  it  be  extended  to  all  dioceses.  In  all 
episcopal  Curias,  therefore,  let  censors  be  appointed 
for  the  revision  of  works  intended  for  publication, 
and  let  the  censors  be  chosen  from  both  ranks  of 
the  clergy — secular  and  regular — men  whose  age, 
knowledge,  and  prudence  will  enable  them  to  follow 
the  safe  and  golden  mean  in  their  judgments.  It 
shall  be  their  office  to  examine  everything  which 
requires  permission  for  publication  according  to 
Articles  XLI.  and  XLII.  of  the  above-mentioned 
Constitution.  The  censor  shall  give  his  verdict  in 
writing.  If  it  be  favourable,  the  Bishop  will  give 
the  permission  for  publication  by  the  word  Imprima- 
tur, which  must  be  preceded  by  the  Nihil  obstat 
and  the  name  of  the  censor.  In  the  Roman  Curia 
official  censors  shall  be  appointed  in  the  same  way 
as  elsewhere,  and  the  duty  of  nominating  them  shall 
appertain  to  the  Master  of  the  Sacred  Palace,  after 
they  have  been  proposed  to  the  Cardinal  Vicar  and 
have  been  approved  and  accepted  by  the  Sovereign 


Encyclical  Letter  237 

Pontiff.  It  will  also  be  the  office  of  the  Master  of 
the  Sacred  Palace  to  select  the  censor  for  each  writ- 
ing. Permission  for  publication  will  be  granted  by 
him  as  well  as  by  the  Cardinal  Vicar  or  his  Vice- 
gerent, and  this  permission,  as  above  prescribed, 
must  be  preceded  by  the  Nihil  obstat  and  the  name 
of  the  Censor.  Only  on  very  rare  and  exceptional 
occasions,  and  on  the  prudent  decision  of  the  Bishop, 
shall  it  be  possible  to  omit  mention  of  the  Censor. 
The  name  of  the  Censor  shall  never  be  made  known 
to  the  authors  until  he  shall  have  given  a  favourable 
decision,  so  that  he  may  not  have  to  suffer  incon- 
venience either  while  he  is  engaged  in  the  examina- 
tion of  a  writing  or  in  case  he  should  withhold  his 
approval.  Censors  shall  never  be  chosen  from  the 
religious  orders  until  the  opinion  of  the  Provincial, 
or  in  Rome,  of  the  General,  has  been  privately 
obtained,  and  the  Provincial  or  the  General  must 
give  a  conscientious  account  of  the  character,  know- 
ledge, and  orthodoxy  of  the  candidate.  We  ad- 
monish religious  superiors  of  their  most  solemn  duty 
never  to  allow  anything  to  be  published  by  any  of 
their  subjects  without  permission  from  themselves 
and  from  the  Ordinary.  Finally,  We  affirm  and 
declare  that  the  title  of  Censor  with  which  a  person 
may  be  honoured  has  no  value  whatever,  and  can 
never  be  adduced  to  give  credit  to  the  private 
opinions  of  him  who  holds  it. 


238    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

[priests  as  editors] 

Having  said  this  much  in  general,  We  now  ordain 
in  particular  a  more  careful  observance  of  Article 
XLII.  of  the  above-mentioned  Constitution  Offi- 
ciorum,  according  to  which  it  is  forbidden  to  secular 
priests^  without  the  previous  co7ise7it  of  the  Ordinary y 
to  undertake  the  editorship  of  papers  or  periodicals. 
This  permission  shall  be  withdrawn  from  any  priest 
who  makes  a  wrong  use  of  it  after  having  received 
an  admonition  thereupon.  With  regard  to  priests 
who  are  correspoftdents  or  collaborators  of  periodicals, 
as  it  happens  not  unfrequently  that  they  contribute 
matter  infected  with  Modernism  to  their  papers  or 
periodicals,  let  the  Bishops  see  to  it  that  they  do  not 
offend  in  this  manner  ;  and  if  they  do,  let  them  warn 
the  offenders  and  prevent  them  from  writing.  We 
solemnly  charge  in  like  manner  the  superiors  of 
religious  orders  that  they  fulfil  the  same  duty,  and 
should  they  fail  in  it,  let  the  Bishops  make  due  pro- 
vision with  authority  from  the  Supreme  Pontiff. 
Let  there  be,  as  far  as  this  is  possible,  a  special 
Censor  for  newspapers  and  periodicals  written  by 
Catholics.  It  shall  be  his  office  to  read  in  due  time 
each  number  after  it  has  been  published,  and  if 
he  find  anything  dangerous  in  it  let  him  order 
that  it  be  corrected  as  soon  as  possible.  The 
Bishop     shall   have    the   same    right    even     when 


Encyclical  Letter  239 

the    Censor   has    seen   nothing  objectionable  in  a 
publication. 

[5.— CONGRESSES] 

5.  We  have  already  mentioned  congresses  and 
public  gatherings  as  among  the  means  used  by  the 
Modernists  to  propagate  and  defend  their  opinions. 
In  the  future,  Bishops  shall  not  permit  Congresses  of 
priests  except  on  very  rare  occasions.  When  they 
do  permit  them  it  shall  only  be  on  condition  that 
matters  appertaining  to  the  Bishops  or  the  Apostolic 
See  be  not  treated  in  them,  and  that  no  resolutions 
or  petitions  be  allowed  that  would  imply  a  usurpa- 
tion of  sacred  authority,  and  that  absolutely  nothing 
be  said  in  them  which  savours  of  Modernism,  Pres- 
byterianism,  or  Laicism.  At  Congresses  of  this  kind, 
which  can  only  be  held  after  permission  in  writing 
has  been  obtained  in  due  time  and  for  each  case,  it 
shall  not  be  lawful  for  priests  of  other  dioceses  to 
be  present  without  the  written  permission  of  their 
Ordinary.  Further,  no  priest  must  lose  sight  of  the 
solemn  recommendation  of  Leo  XIII.:  Let  priests 
hold  as  sacred  the  authority  of  their  pastors,  let  them 
take  it  for  certain  that  the  sacerdotal  inijiistry,  if  not 
exercised  imder  the  guidance  of  the  Bishops,  can  7iever 
be  either  holy ,  nor  very  fruitful,  nor  worthy  of  respect.^ 


*  Lett,  Encyc.  Nobilissirna  Galloriim,  lo  Feb.,  1884. 


240    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

[6.— DIOCESAN   VIGILANCE   COMMITTEES] 

6.  But  of  what  avail,  Venerable  Brethren,  would 
be  all  Our  commands  and  prescriptions  if  they  be 
not  dutifully  and  firmly  carried  out  ?  In  order  that 
this  may  be  done  it  has  seemed  expedient  to  us  to 
extend  to  all  dioceses  the  regulations  which  the 
Bishops  of  Umbria,  with  great  wisdom,  laid  down 
for  theirs  many  years  ago. 

''^  In  ordeTy'  they  say,  ^^  to  extirpate  the  errors 
already  propagated  and  to  prevent  their  further  diffu- 
sion^  g,nd  to  remove  those  teachers  of  impiety  through 
whom  the  pernicious  effects  of  such  diffusion  are  being 
perpetuated,  this  sacred  Assembly ,  following  the  ex- 
ample of  S.  Charles  Borromeo,  has  decided  to  establish 
in  each  of  the  dioceses  a  Council  consisting  of  approved 
members  of  both  branches  of  the  clergy ,  which  shall  be 
charged  with  the  task  of  noting  the  existence  of  errors 
and  the  devices  by  which  new  ones  are  introduced  and 
propagated,  and  to  inform  the  Bishop  of  the  whole,  so 
that  he  may  take  counsel  with  them  as  to  the  best 
means  for  suppressing  the  evil  at  the  outset  and  pre- 
venting it  spreading  for  the  ruin  of  souls  or,  worse 
still,  gaining  strength  and  growths  *  We  decree, 
therefore,  that  in  every  diocese  a  council  of  this  kind, 
which  We  are  pleased  to  name  the  "  Council  of  Vig- 


*  Acts  of  the  Congress  of  the  Bishops  of  Umbria,    November, 
1849,  tit.  2,  art.  6. 


Encyclical  Letter  241 

ilance,"  be  instituted  without  delay.  The  priests 
called  to  form  part  in  it  shall  be  chosen  somewhat 
after  the  manner  above  prescribed  for  the  Censors, 
and  they  shall  meet  every  two  months  on  an  ap- 
pointed day  in  the  presence  of  the  Bishop.  They 
shall  be  bound  to  secrecy  as  to  their  deliberations 
and  decisions,  and  in  their  functions  shall  be  included 
the  following :  They  shall  watch  most  carefully  for 
every  trace  and  sign  of  Modernism  both  in  publica- 
tions and  in  teaching,  and  to  preserve  it  from  the 
clergy  and  the  young  they  shall  take  all  prudent, 
prompt  and  efficacious  measures.  Let  them  combat 
novelties  of  words,  remembering  the  admonitions  of 
Leo  XI n. :  *  //  is  impossible  to  approve  in  Catholic 
publications  a  style  inspired  by  unsound  novelty  which 
seems  to  deride  the  piety  of  the  faithful  and  dwells  on 
the  introduction  of  a  new  order  of  Christian  life,  on 
new  directions  of  the  Churchy  on  new  aspirations  of 
the  modern  soul,  on  a  new  social  vocation  of  the  clergy, 
on  a  new  Christian  civilisation,  and  many  other  things 
of  the  same  kind. 

Language  of  the  kind  here  indicated  is  not  to  be 
tolerated  either  in  books  or  in  lectures.  The  Coun- 
cils must  not  neglect  the  books  treating  of  the  pious 
traditions  of  different  places  or  of  sacred  relics.  Let 
them  not  permit  such  questions  to  be  discussed  in 
journals   or    periodicals   destined    to    foster    piety, 

*  Instruct.  S.C.  NN.  EE.  EE.,  January  27,  1902. 
16 


242    The  Prolamine  of  Modernism 


^5 


neither  with  expressions  savouring  of  mockery  or 
contempt,  nor  by  dogmatic  pronouncements,  especi- 
ally when,  as  is  often  the  case,  what  is  stated  as  a 
certainty  either  does  not  pass  the  limits  of  proba- 
bility or  is  based  on  prejudiced  opinion.  Concern- 
ing sacred  relics,  let  this  be  the  rule  :  if  Bishops,  who 
alone  are  judges  in  such  matters,  know  for  certain 
that  a  relic  is  not  genuine,  let  them  remove  it  at 
once  from  the  veneration  of  the  faithful ;  if  the 
authentications  of  a  relic  happen  to  have  been  lost 
through  civil  disturbances,  or  in  any  other  way,  let 
it  not  be  exposed  for  public  veneration  until  the 
Bishop  has  verified  it.  The  argument  of  prescrip- 
tion or  well-founded  presumption  is  to  have  weight 
only  when  devotion  to  a  relic  is  commendable  by 
reason  of  its  antiquity,  according  to  the  sense  of  the 
Decree  issued  in  1896  by  the  Congregation  of  In- 
dulgences and  Sacred  Relics  :  Ancient  relics  are  to 
retain  the  veneration  they  have  always  enjoyed  except 
when  iji  individual  instafices  there  are  clear  arguments 
that  they  are  false  or  supposititious.  In  passing  judg- 
ment on  pious  traditions  let  it  always  be  borne  in 
mind  that  in  this  matter  the  Church  uses  the  great- 
est prudence,  and  that  she  does  not  allow  traditions 
of  this  kind  to  be  narrated  in  books  except  with  the 
utmost  caution  and  with  the  insertion  of  the  declar- 
ation imposed  by  Urban  VIII. ;  and  even  then  she 
does  not  guarantee  the  truth  of  the  fact  narrated; 


Encyclical  Letter  243 

she  simply  does  not  forbid  belief  in  things  for  which 
human  evidence  is  not  wanting.  On  this  matter  the 
Sacred  Congregation  of  Rites,  thirty  years  ago,  de- 
creed as  follows :  These  apparitioyis  or  revelations 
have  neither  been  approved  nor  condemned  by  the  Holy 
See,  which  has  simply  allowed  them  to  be  believed  on 
purely  human  faith,  on  the  tradition  which  they  re- 
late, corroborated  by  testimony  and  documents  worthy 
of  credence.  *  Any  one  who  follows  this  rule  has  no 
cause  to  fear.  For  the  devotion  based  on  any  ap- 
parition, in  so  far  as  it  regards  the  fact  itself,  that  is 
to  say,  in  as  far  as  the  devotion  is  relative,  always 
implies  the  condition  of  the  fact  being  true ;  while 
in  as  far  as  it  is  absolute,  it  is  always  based  on  the 
truth,  seeing  that  its  object  is  the  persons  of  the 
saints  who  are  honoured.  The  same  is  true  of  relics. 
Finally,  We  entrust  to  the  Councils  of  Vigilance  the 
duty  of  overlooking  assiduously  and  diligently  social 
institutions  as  well  as  writings  on  social  questions  so 
that  they  may  harbour  no  trace  of  Modernism,  but 
obey  the  prescriptions  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs. 

[7.— TRIENNIAL    RETURNS] 

7.  Lest  what  We  have  laid  down  thus  far  should 
pass  into  oblivion.  We  will  and  ordain  that  the 
Bishops  of  all  dioceses,  a  year  after  the  publication 
of  these  letters  and  every  three  years  thenceforward, 

*  Decree,  May  2,  1877. 


244    The  Programme  of  Modernism 

furnish  the  Holy  See  with  a  diligent  and  sworn  re- 
port on  the  things  which  have  been  decreed  in  this 
Our  Letter,  and  on  the  doctrines  that  find  currency 
among  the  clergy,  and  especially  in  the  seminaries 
and  other  Catholic  institutions,  those  not  excepted 
which  are  not  subject  to  the  Ordinary,  and  We  im- 
pose the  like  obligation  on  the  Generals  of  Religious 
Orders  with  regard  to  those  who  are  under  them. 

[conclusion] 

This,  Venerable  Brethren,  is  what  We  have 
thought  it  Our  duty  to  write  to  you  for  the  salva- 
tion of  all  who  believe.  The  adversaries  of  the 
Church  will  doubtlessly  abuse  what  We  have  said  to 
refurbish  the  old  calumny  by  which  We  are  traduced 
as  the  enemy  of  science  and  of  the  progress  of  hu- 
manity. As  a  fresh  answer  to  such  accusations, 
which  the  history  of  the  Christian  religion  refutes 
by  never-failing  evidence,  it  is  Our  intention  to 
establish  by  every  means  in  our  power  a  special  In- 
stitute in  which,  through  the  co-operation  of  those 
Catholics  who  are  most  eminent  for  their  learning, 
the  advance  of  science  and  every  other  department 
of  knowledge  may  be  promoted  under  the  guidance 
and  teaching  of  Catholic  truth.  God  grant  that  We 
may  happily  realise  Our  design  with  the  assistance 
of  all  those  who  bear  a  sincere  love  for  the  Church 


Encyclical  Letter  245 

of   Christ.      But  of  this  We  propose   to  speak  ,o^ 
another  occasion.  ' 

Meanwhile,  Venerable  Brethren,  fully  confident  in 
your  zeal  and  energy,  We  beseech  for  you  with  Our 
whole  heart  the  abundance  of  heavenly  light,  so 
that  in  the  midst  of  this  great  danger  to  souls  from 
the  insidious  invasions  of  error  upon  every  hand, 
you  may  see  clearly  what  ought  to  be  done,  and 
labour  to  do  it  with  all  your  strength  and  courage. 
May  Jesus  Christ,  the  author  and  finisher  of  our 
faith,  be  with  you  in  His  power;  and  may  the  Im- 
maculate Virgin,  the  destroyer  of  all  heresies,  be 
with  you  by  her  prayers  and  aid.  And  We,  as  a 
pledge  of  Our  affection  and  of  the  Divine  solace  in 
adversity,  most  lovingly  grant  to  you,  your  clergy 
and  people,  the  Apostolic  Benediction. 

Given  at  S.  Peter's^  Rome^  on  the  eighth  day  of 
September^  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  seven^  the 
fifth  year  of  our  Pontificate, 

PIUS  X.,  POPE. 


THE  END 


Jf  Selection  from  the 
Catalogue  of 

C  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 


Complete  Catalogues  sent 
on  application 


The  Crown  Theological  Library 


Babel  and  Bible 

By  Dr.  Friedrich  Delitzsch,  of  the  University  of 
Berlin.  Authorized  translation.  Cr.  8vo.  With  77 
illustrations.     Net,  $1.50. 

"Every  student  of  the  Bible  and  every  clergyman  who  intends  to  keep 
up  with  the  progress  in  Bible  research  should  be  familiar  with  the  con- 
tents of  this  book." — Springfield  Republican. 

The  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ 

A  Christological  Study.  By  Paul  Lobstein,  of  the 
University  of  Strasburg.  Authorized  translation. 
Cr.  8vo.     Net,  $1.25. 

"  Professor  Lobstein  makes  a  strong  argument  for  his  view,  and  his 
treatment  of  the  whole  subject  is  reverent  and  suggestive.  The  book  is 
small  and  concise  and  contains  a  wealth  of  material." — The  Independent 

My  Struggle  for  Light 

Confessions  of  a  Preacher.  By  R.  Wimmer.  Cr. 
8vo.     Net,  $1.25. 

A  book  which  will  appeal  to  ministers  who  are  anxious  to  preserve  in- 
tellectual sincerity,  and  to  thoughtful  laymen  who  are  turning  over  in  their 
mind  the  deepest  problems  of  religion. 

Liberal  Christianity: 

Its  Origin,  Nature,  and  Mission 

By  Jean  Reville,  Professor  in  the  Protestant  Theo- 
logical Faculty  of  Paris.  Translated  and  Edited  by 
Victor  Leuliette.     Cr.  8vo.    Net,  $1.25. 

"  Its  orderliness  of  thought  and  its  lucidity  of  expression  make  it  a 
handbook  highly  desirable  to  possess, — a  book  to  read,  to  lend,  to  give 
away . ' ' — Christian  Register. 

What  is  Christianity? 

By  Adolf  Harnack,  Professor  of  Church  History  in 
the  University  of  Berlin.  Translated  by  T.  Bailey 
Saunders.  With  a  Special  Preface  to  the  English 
Edition  by  the  Author.  Octavo.  (By  mail,  $1.90.) 
Net,  $1.75. 

"  For  its  stimulating  thought,  we  commend  it  heartily  to  the  study  and 
thought  of  our  readers." — Christian  World. 

New  York— G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS  — London 


The  Crown  Theological  Library 


Faith  and  Morals 

By  Wilhelm  Herrmann,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Dogmatic 
Theology  in  the  University  of  Marburg.  Translated 
from  the  German  by  Donald  Matheson,  M.A.,  and 
Robert  W.  Stewart,  M.A.,  B.Sc.  Cr.  8vo.  Net, 
$1.50. 

"  It  is  seldom  a  theological  work  appears,  more  fitted  to  clarify  thought 
and  stimulate  real  religious  feelings  and  genuine  pity." — Independent. 

Early  Hebrew  Story 

A  Study  of  the  Origin,  the  Value,  and  the  Historical 
Background  of  the  Legends  of  Israel.  By  John  P. 
Peters,  D.D.,  Rector  of  St.  Michael's  Church,  New- 
York.     Cr.  8vo.     Net,  $1.25. 

"  We  believe  that  the  course  is  adapted  to  promote  biblical  scholarship, 
and  that  their  expert  knowledge  and  positive  constructive  tone  give  them 
exceptional  value  at  the  present  time." — Extract  from  a  minute  adopted 
by  the  Faculty  of  the  Bangor  Theological  Seminary, 

Biblical    Problems    and   the  New  Material  for 
their  Solution 

By  Rev.  Thomas  Cheyne,  Oriel  Professor  of  the 
Interpretation  of  the  Scripture,  Oxford,  Canon  of 
Rochester,  formerly  Fellow  of  Balliol  College.  Cr. 
8vo.    Net,  $1.50. 

"  The  author  puts  a  number  of  disputed  questions  into  a  clear  and  com- 
prehensible form  and  indicates  what  light  modern  investigation  has  thrown 
upon  them." — The  Sun. 

The  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  and  the  Religion 
of  Modem  Culture 

Two  Essays.  By  Auguste  Sabatier,  late  Dean  of 
the  Theolo^cal  Faculty  of  the  University  of  Paris. 
Translated  by  Victor  Leuliette,  A.K.C.,  B.-^s-L. 
Cr.    vo.     Net,  $1.25. 

"  A  singularly  fascinating  presentation  of  the  changing  forms  of  religion 
and  the  influence  of  culture  on  the  transformation.      The  historic  survey 
of  the  theories  of  the  death  of  Jesus  is  made  complete  and  discriminating. 
—  The  Christian  Register. 

New  York— G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS  — London 


The  Crown  Theological  Library 


The  Early  Christian  Conception  of  Christ 

Its  Significance  and  Value  in  the  History  of  Re- 
ligion. By  Otto  Pfleiderer,  Professor  of  Theology 
in  the  University  of  Berlin.     Cr.  8vo.     Net,  $1.25. 

"It  would  be  difficult  to  name  any  recent  English  work  which  could 
compare  with  this  brilliant  essay  as  a  concise  but  lucid  presentation  of  the 
attitude  of  the  more  advanced  school  of  German  theologians  to  the  Founder 
of  the  Christian  Religion," — Scotsman. 

The  Child  and  Religion 

A  Collection  of  Essays  edited  by  Rev.  T.  Stephens, 
B.A.     Cr.  8vo.     Net,  $1.50. 

"Those  who  are  grappling  with  practical  problems  will  find  in  these 
essays,  written  from  various  points  of  view,  much  that  is  suggestive  and 
helpful."— r/^^  Outlook. 

The  Evolution  of  Religion 

An  Anthropological  Study.  By  L.  R.  Farnell, 
M.A.,  D.Litt.,  Fellow  and  Tutor  of  Exeter  College, 
Oxford.     Cr.  8vo.     Net,  $1.50. 

A  discussion  of  the  ritual  of  purification  and  the  influence  of  ideas  asso- 
ciated with  it  upon  law,  morality,  and  religion. 

The  History  of  Early  Christian  Literature 

By  H.  von  Soden,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Theology  in 
the  University  of  Berlin.  Translated  by  Rev.  J.  R. 
Wilkinson,  M.A.     Cr.  Svo.     Net,  $1.50. 

"  It  is  the  work  of  a  scholar,  ,  ,  .  This  literature  has  an  "irreplaceable 
value,"  and  its  significance  'can  scarcely  be  rated  too  high.'  — N.W. 
Christian  Advocate. 

The  Religion  of  Christ  in  the  Twentieth  Century 
Cr.  8vo.     Net,  $1.50. 

"This  brief  but  weighty  utterance,  ...  A  writer  cf  culture  as  well  as  a 
thinker  of  uncommon  force,  ,  .  .  The  thoughts  and  conclusions  presented 
have  been  uttered  before,  but  never  more  clearly  or  more  attractively," 
— Outlook. 


New  York  — G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS  — London 


The  Crown  Theological  Library 


Jesus 

By  W.  Bousset,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Gottingen.  Translated  by  Janet  Penrose 
Trevelyan.    Cr.  8vo.    Net,  $1.25. 

"It  most  invites  comparison  with  Harnack's  '  What  is  Christianity?' 
Its  standpoint  is  similar.  There  is  the  same  wide  knowledge  of  the 
sources,  the  perfect  independence  of  outlook,  the  same  reverence  for 
Christ's  character  and  ideals."— CArzsimn  IVorld. 


The  Communion  of  the  Christian  with  God 

By  Professor  W.  Herrmann.  Translated  from  New 
German  Edition  by  Rev.  J.  S.  Stanyon,  M.A.,  and 
Rev.  R.  W.  Stewart,  B.D.,  B.Sc.  Cr.  8vo.  Net, 
$1.50. 

"  Here  is  something  more  reasonable  and  persuasive  than  the  usual 
conservative  dogmatics,  more  truly  religious  and  deeply  spiritual  than  the 
ordinary  doctrine  of  liberals.  It  is  assuredly  one  of  the  important  doc- 
trinal treatises  of  a  generation." — New  York  Independent. 

Hebrew  Religion  to  the  Establishment  of  Juda- 
ism under  Ezra 
By  W.  E.  Addis,  M.A.    Cr.  8vo.     Net,  $1.50. 

"Professor  Addis  is  a  competent  scholar  in  Old  Testament  matters,  and 
his  sketch  of  the  earlier  and  more  important  periods  of  the  development 
of  Hebrew  religion  is  in  fact  a  careful  and  thorough  study  of  its  subject." 
— Eve.  Post. 


Naturalism  and  Religion 

By  Rudolf  otto.  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Gottingen.  Translated  by  J.  Arthur 
Thomson,  Professor  of  Natural  History  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Aberdeen,  and  Margaret  R.  Thomson. 
Edited,  with  an  Introduction,  by  Rev.  W.  D.  Morri- 
son, LL.D.     Cr.  Svo.     Net,  $1.50. 

_".  .  .  Is  a  detailed  and  systematic  examination  of  the  ground  of  Natur- 
alism and  elaboration  of  the  religious  standpoint.  .  .  .  It  is  well  written, 
clear,  and  even  eloquent." — Expository  Times. 

New  York  — G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS  — London 


The  Crown  Theological  Library 


Essays  on  the  Social  Gospel 

By  Adolf  Harnack,  Professor  of  Church  History  in 
the  University  of  Berlin,  and  Wilhelm  Herrmann, 
Professor  of  Theology  in  the  University  of  Marburg. 
Translated  by  G.  M.  Craik  and  Edited  by  Maurice 
A.  Canney,  M.A.     Cr.  8vo.     Net,  $1.25. 

These  essaj's  attempt  to  show  that  the  moral  directions  of  Jesus  are  not 
complex  in  their  demands,  but  require  of  us  simply  that  one  thing  that 
alonecan  bestow  upon  the  will  singleness  of  aim,  and  produce  a  stead- 
fast, independent  attitude  of  mind. 

The  Religion  of  the  Old  Testament 

Its  Place  among  the  Religions  of  the  Nearer  East. 
By  Karl  Marti,  of  the  University  of  Berlin.  Trans- 
lated by  Rev.  G.  A.  Bienemann,  M.A.  Edited  by 
Rev.  W.  D.  Morrison,  LL.D.     Cr.  8vo.     Net,  $1.25. 

"The  name  of  Professor  Karl  Marti  is  a  sufficient  guarantee  of  the 
scholarly  merit  of  any  work  in  the  field  of  Semitic  study  to  which  it  is 
attached.  The  purpose  of  this  book  is  chiefly  comparative — to  assign  the 
place  of  the  religion  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  among  the  religions  of  the 
nearer  East." — London  Tribune. 

What  is  Religion? 

By  Wilhelm  Bousset,  Professor  in  the  University  of 
Gbttingen.  Translated  by  F.  B.  Lovc^.  Cr.  8vo. 
Net,  $1.50. 

"  The  work  of  an  expert,  a  critic  free  from  predilections,  yet  not  an 
extremist,  and  one  by  no  means  devoid  of  the  religious  sense  needful  to 
the  handling  of  so  high  a  theme." — The  N.  Y.  Eve.  Post. 

Luke  the  Physician 

The  Author  of  the  Third  Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  By  Adolf  Harnack,  Professor  of  Church 
History  in  the  University  of  Berlin.  Translated  by 
the  Rev.  J.  R.  Wilkinson,  M.A.  Edited  by  the  Rev. 
W.  D.  Morrison,  LL.D.     Cr.  8vo.     Net,  $1.50. 

An  investigation  of  the  history  of  the  founding  of  the  primitive  tradi- 
tions which  will  be  read  with  the  greatest  profit  by  every  student  of  the 
history  of  Christianity. 

New  York  — G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS  — London 


The  Crown  Theological  Library 


The  Historical  Evidence  for  the  Resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ 

By  Kirsopp  Lake,  M.A.,  Professor  in  the  University 
of  Leiden.    Cr.  8vo.     Net  $1.50. 

The  book  is  an  investigation  into  history,  and  is  concerned  not  with 
the  spiritual  evidence  of  religious  experience,  but  with  the  testimony  of 
early  Christian  literature. 

The  Apologetic  of  the  New  Testament 

By  E.  F.  Scott,  M.A.,  B.A.     Cr.  8vo.     Net  $1.50. 

It  has  long  been  recognized  that  some  apologetic  motive  is  at  work  in 
almost  every  book  of  the  New  Testament,  and  it  is  this  aspect  of  the 
writings  which  is  here  separated  for  special  study. 

The  Sayings  of  Jesus 

By  Adolf  Harnack,  Professor  of  Church  History  in 
the  University  of  Berlin.  Translated  by  Rev.  J.  R. 
Wilkinson,  M.A.    Cr.  8vo.     Net, 

This  work  is  an  attempt  to  determine  the  source  from  which  Matthew 
and  Luke  drew  their  information,  and  to  estimate  its  value  in  relation  to 
the  gospel  of  St.  Mark. 

The  Programme  of  Modernism 

A  Reply  to  the  Encyclical  of  Pius  X.,  Pascendi 
Dominici  Gregis.  With  the  Text  of  the  Encyclical 
in  an  English  Version.  Translated  from  the  Italian, 
V7ith  an  Introduction  by  A.  Leslie  Lilley,  Vicar  of  St. 
Mary's,  Paddington  Green.     Cr.  Svo.,  Net  $1.50. 

This  volume  is  more  than  a  reply  to  the  Papal  strictures  on  the 
"  Modernist "  position  ;  it  is  the  most  masterly  general  presentation  that 
has  yet  appeared  of  the  results  of  scientific  Biblical  criticism,  and  of 
the  present  state  of  orthodoxy  after  its  adventurous  journey  through 
the  rough  seas  of  Higher  Criticism. 

Paul  the  Mystic 

A  Study  in  Apostolic  Experience.  By  James  M. 
Campbell,  D.D.,  author  of  "The  Indwelling  Christ," 
"After  Pentecost— What  ?  "  etc.   Cr.  Svo.   Net  $1.50. 


Acts  of  the  Apostles 

By  Adolf  Harnack,   Professor  of  Church    History. 
Cr.  Svo.     Net, 


New  York— G.  P.  PUTNAM'S   SONS— London 


International   Handbooks  to  the 
New  Testament 

Edited  by  Orello  Cone,  D.D. 

Four  volumes.    Octavo.     Each,  net,  $2.00 
By  mail,  $2.15 

I.  —  The  Synoptic  Gospels,  together  with  a 
Chapter  on  the  Text-Criticism  of  the  New 
Testament.  By  George  Lovell  Gary,  A.M., 
L.H.D.,  President  of  the  Meadville  Theological 
School. 

"We  need  hardly  say  that  we  find  ourselves  differing  very  seriously  and 
very  often  from  the  editor  of  this  volume,  but  we  gladly  recognize  the 
thoughtfulness  and  intelligence  with  which  he  has  worked.  The  student 
may  learn  much  from  this  volume." — JV.  V.  Observer. 

II.— The  Epistles  of  Paul  the  Apostle  to  the 
Corinthians,  Thessalonians,  Galatians, 
Romans,  and  Philippians.  By  James  Drum- 
mond,  M.A.,  LL.D.,  Litt.D.,  Principal  of  Man- 
chester Gollege,  Oxford. 

"  If  the  promise  given  by  this  volume  is  fulfilled,  the  series  will  prove  of 
the  highest  value.  It  is  attractive  for  the  general  reader,  while  it  is  of 
special  value  to  advanced  students." — The  Outlook. 

III.— The  Epistles  to  the  Hebrews,  Colossians, 
Ephesians,  and  Philemon,  The  Pastoral 
Epistles,  The  Epistles  of  James,  Peter, 
and  Jude,  together  with  a  Sketch  of  the  History 
of  the  Ganon  of  the  New  Testament.  By  Orello 
Gone,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology  in 
the  Ganton  Theological  School. 

"It  is  interesting  to  note  the  meaning  often  hitherto  unexplained.  The 
author  succeeds  because  his  explanations  are  reasonable  and  plausible.  He 
is  not  bound  to  any  rule  of  dogma  or  sect,  but  takes  a  broad  and  understand- 
ing view  of  his  subject,"— C/i«r£->4  Review. 

IV.— The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Revelation, 
The  Gospel  of  John,  The  Three  Epistles 
of  John.      By  Henry  P.  Forbes,  D.D.,  Dean  of 

the  School  of  Theology  of  St.  Lawrence  Uni- 
versity and  Graig  Professor  of  Biblical  Language 
and  Literature. 

Send  for  complete  descriptive  circular 

New  York  —  Q.  P.  PUTNAM'S   SONS—  London 


"'■^X'lf^^-  ^, 


'ft 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITV 
I'irl1'1i'litl1  I    '" 

.jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyi  iii 

0035519231 


936 

P942 

C.3 


"/)n  flfQr 


o 


O 


